Slashdot Mirror
CCAGW Misreads Mass. Policy, Open Standards Generally
mhrivnak writes "The Council for
Citizens Against Government Waste made this press
release blasting the Massachusetts policy decision to move to Open Source. They explain why Linux is a 'monopoly,' how this policy is
'socialist' and why 'The old Soviet Union could not have done this any better.' The CCAGW has been previously informed about the benefits of open source software in
government. Tell them what you think!" The CCAGW is at least not completely one-dimensional; the group
is also opposed to mandatory embedded
snoopware.
Maybe they don't realize that conventional
closed-source software
has
big costs worth avoiding.
If CAGW was paid off like the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution or if they are just a bunch of idiots generally speaking.
Since CAGW is allegedly concerned about federal dollars they'd probably REALLY shit to see my federal agency now switching over to open source (via Zope). And it's not just us, here's a whole list of federal agencies switching to CMSs powered by Open Source. CAGW better get ready with their FUD machine.
"Linux is a monopoly"
Thanks CCAGW, I needed a good laugh.
"The state's taxpayers deserve nothing less." -CAGW President Tom Schatz
Dear Mr. Schatz,
I agree 100%, but not in the way you may think
The site www.cagw.org is running Apache/1.3.12 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.6.5 OpenSSL/0.9.6e ApacheJServ/1.1.2
mod_fastcgi/2.2.10 on FreeBSD.
Trolling is a art,
Mabey they should be renamed the Council Against Citizens for Government Waste
M....S....F.... and T
Socialism is just a red herring. ...or maybe that's Communism.
:-)
Oh crap, now I'm confusing Clue quotes... heh
All I want is a kind word, a warm bed and unlimited power.
The actual quote is:
"It is ironic that Massachusetts, as the only state remaining in the lawsuit accusing Microsoft of antitrust violations, is creating its own state-imposed monopoly on software."
So, while misguided, the CCAGW isn't exactly calling Linux a monopoly, but rather the government of Massachussets.
"Intelligence is a constant. The population is increasing."
"Insanity is doing the same thing over again expecting a different result."
...else why complain about the government spending less (or nothing) for software? Answer: their MS stock would plummet.
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
since they love and hate linux and microsoft equally.
If you lost your job today, don't despair. You may die tomorrow anyway.
Microsoft
...governement waste is when you spend less taxpayer's money.
All I have to say is: HA people shouldn't say things about stuff they know nothing about.
Whats the idea behind that?
Hmm...I see no flamebait potential in this story...
"Ask not for whom the bone bones. It bones for thee." --Bender
Who misread what?
You do realize that people can disagree with your pro-linux attitudes, and many do, and for good reason.
From the release.
"Governor Mitt Romney must put a stop to this boondoggle," CAGW President Tom Schatz said. "People mistakenly refer to Linux as 'free' software because it can be freely altered and distributed. Yet while the software itself is free, the cost to maintain and upgrade it can become very expensive. Like all procurement decisions, the best policy on the use of software is to place all products on equal footing. It is critical that taxpayers receive the best quality programs at the least cost."
I agree. Government policies that close doors to competition are bad. Linux might work in some situations, but not in others. There are plenty of good software packages out there to use, and plenty of specific packages for government, that wont exist in OSS until someone is paid (gobs of cash) to write them.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
I didn't know you could have a state-imposed monopoly on free stuff. I wonder who funds this group...
Even citizens can be bought too...
This statement fits the definition of FUD. The question is, who is behind it? It sounds remarkably Microsoft inspired!!
Everyone knows that large international corporations like IBM love nothing better than communism. *cough* morons!
How many companies can provide the Windows set of "solutions": 1.
How many companies can provide OSS solutions: many. And new entrants have very low barriers of entry to try to do so if they feel so inclined.
Talk about misunderstanding (in purpose?) the meaning of the word monopoly.
Honestly, what are those people smoking? WHo are they supporters? Who advises them in IT matters? And in anticompetitive legal matters?
Can somebody send them one or two of the many fully documented cases (Amazon, Munich) in which Linux based offerings were cheaper than closed source based ones?
Please, can somebody educate them in case the barbarities they are saying come out of ignorance and not of knowing misrepresentation?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Massachusetts Socialists..... I hate Massachusetts Socialists!
Not to put too fine a point on it, but it's entirely possible that every last one of these dweebs is, in fact married, and not even *somewhat* available.
Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
Boondoggle CCAGW Misspeaks English, Generally Can't Comprehend Communication
Do we have to have the Soviet Russia jokes in the articles as well now?
"She's a West Texas girl, just like me" - G.W Bush Iraqis
I find it funny, or at least scary, that right in the US, some people are equating something "free" with "communism". Someone should explain this one to the founding fathers of the US. Also, can someone please explain to me what boondoggle is?
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
"Yet while the software itself is free, the cost to maintain and upgrade it can become very expensive"
Yeah - good thing they didn't have to FIRST pay for the software, and THEN have to pay to upgrade and maintain it. Sheesh. Microsoft would never make you do that...
My sig left me for a younger user id.
"Governor Mitt Romney must put a stop to this boondoggle."
I'm sorry, but I don't respond to people who use the word 'boondoggle'.
I'll keep it short so you can get back to getting cheesy-puff cheese all over your size XXXL Linux Penguin shirts.
1. They didn't call Linux a monopoly.
2. The policy is idiotic, and the press release is at least reasonable, if not a little overboard.
3. Mandating the use of a particular piece of software over all others, regardless of the specific need or evaluation process, is idiotic. They should fire that asshole immediately.
Thanks for listening.
A switch from linux to ms would be something to complain about (wastefule, monopoly, insecure, etc.) but this? And anyways, the government by nature (another topic for another time) is wasteful and this, if anything, is not the kind of waste to be complained about.
-Tim Louden
What is soo wrong with them asking the government of Mass to keep open the choice to use other OS's than Linux? Being a BSD / Linux user as well as a Mac OS9 / OSX and Several flavors of windows user (You can throw in BeOS as well) I have something good to say (As well as something bad) about each of them. What elected jerk is going to make a law deciding that an agency should use a specific piece of software regardless of the requirements of the job.
This is one of the reasons why government needs to be shrunk. (I ahve never seen a politician propose that seriously though...)
Hajo Monogamy: Belief so strong that millions of people end perfectly good relationships in order to start a new one.
Maybe they could read this and suggest improvements to the case being made.
-- Free software on every PC on every desk
I guess they've never been down here in Mississippi ;)
I'm just curious; I'm not very political in the head. But it makes me wonder, honestly, about politics when I read things such as this. Who, exactly, informs people in power of technical details? Is there a department that specializes in informing people in power of the What's-What of computers? Do they just listen to anyone who wants to yammer at them and assume they're telling the truth? The big question I'm getting at is: Who tells the Governor about the difference between Windows/Linux/Mac/Solaris/etc, in terms of price/impact/uses/etc?
The position taken by Citizens Against Government Waste makes sense. They simply believe that it's wrong to mandate one particular system. As much as I dislike MS and its products, I agree with that. In MANY cases, it makes sense to use something other than Linux or other free software. The total cost of ownership and use are what should matter to taxpayers, NOT the religious issues which are so important to many in the free-software movement.
>The ?Freeware Initiative? will require that all IT expenditures in 2004 and 2005 be made on an open-source/Linux format.
:)
They misspelled GNU/Linux
I don't know about anybody else, but whenever I come across some "organization" with a pretentiously-honorable-sounding yet ambiguous name, my bullshit detector starts ringing. Organizations like Council Against Government Waste, Freedom Foundation, American Heritage Institute, Alliance for Good Government, etc., are usually fueled and funded by some polarized corporate interest.
If you are not from Mass. let me tell you a little about it. 75% is registered democrat yet we always elect republican governors. Why ? Who know or state house is 90% Dem as well.
The major problem we have here is patronage and not just at the state house level. Its not uncommon to see 3 or 4 generation all working at the same state job(for example the T(commuter rail)).
My guess is someones brother must be an MCSE and too dumb to learn anything new. There is a huge "right to work" sentiment here esp. if its paid for by tax dollars. Some times we go so far left here I have to lean right. We have a huge tax problem similar to California. I think its a little worse sometimes. (Excise tax anyone?)
But I would really like to see Free Software and Linux flourish here in Mass.(Birthplace of GNU).
It's all Politics
First of all, let me say I think that open source is a wonderful thing. I disagree with almost all of their arguement, except for the socialist part. This is a capitalist country, and 'open' is not a word commonly associated with capitalism. This does not change my feeling that Mass. should use open source software, I mean come on, it is more secure! I thing we need to waste the CCAGW if anything.
-Seriv
I'm sure I'll get modded down for what I'm about to say. But I may as well burn the karma I have to set the record straight. Think about it. If a state decided it would only consider closed source operating systems for use in government computer, Slashdot would be up in arms about it. And rightly so. They are not saying that Linux is a monopoly. They are saying that the government is preventing open competition at all. Requiring a use of a certain operating system, whether it's Linux or Windows, is blocking competition. All they want is in any case to consider all the options, be it open source or closed source. It's nice to know that Slashdot so grossly misrepresents what's stated in the article. They're not asking to kick out Linux or anything. All they're asking for is that all the options, open and closed source, be considered. That's not too much to ask.
Help me. I've been modbombed by a few people with entirely too much time on their hands.
If you read the article, they aren't saying "Linux is a monopoly." They're saying that the state of Massachusetts would be in effect responsible for creating a monopoly, insofar as it would be restricted to a single "vendor."
This view is a little simplistic, of course -- obviously, lots and lots of people make free/open source software. But I do think it has some merit.
Suppose the gov't mandated open source software, then discovered that none of the open source database software available to them could meet the standards of their applications? Would it then fall upon the government to contract somebody to write the code that would bring PostgreSQL up to par with their existing Oracle installs?
Also, what if MS SQL Server is just the best tool for the job at hand? It's pretty darn fast. You may prefer another product yourself, but that doesn't mean there's anything really "wrong" with MS SQL. It's a totally viable contender. So why tell government organizations that they CAN NOT use it?
In fact, I'm extremely leery of the idea that the government should be allowed to single out a particular business/vendor and say "we will not consider this alternative," while considering all the others. If it's permitted to do that, what criteria should the company meet before it can be excluded? (Obligatory paranoid example: Suppose it was because the CEO was gay?)
The support issue is pretty relevant, too. This brings back the hoary old question, "Is Linux ready for the desktop?" And we're talking dollar values now. If it turns out that your average Joe Shmoe with a government job can't figure out AbiWord as easily as Microsoft Word, then what will be the cost of training those employees to use the new software?
What will be the cost to convert existing documents to file formats that the new software can support?
What will be the cost of supporting the new software, versus supporting the old? Shouldn't the people of Massachusetts be shown some figures before a decision is made?
Who's to say some support contractor won't come along and charge the government an arm and a leg for "advanced Unix experience," compared to what they'd pay to support Windows? I mean, it is the government, right? When did a contractor ever fleece the government?
I'm not trying to say that any of this proves that switching to open source is a bad idea for Massachusetts. But I do think that, if what this organization is saying is that the taxpayers should be asking questions and demanding answers, then I'd kinda tend to agree.
Breakfast served all day!
...Council for Wasted Citizens Against Government? I'll have what they're smoking.
666-607: 6th floor apartment of the beast
Why do americans *seem* to fear a socialist government?
They probably don't know what it means anyway. clueless.
They seem to think socialism == communism.
Which is wrong.
I just used their online form to email my reps to stop mandated DRM.
Theres the link Write your representatives
crack pipe as Darl.
How about let's do a little investigation here.
Who pads their coffers?? Could there be a few M$ bucks in the CCAGW kitty??
I'll leave you to ponder this for a while....
On the topic at hand: Linux is a monopoly"???
A bit of research (Although, they're running linux, so it may be a conspiracy) :
monopoly:
1. Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service: "Monopoly frequently... arises from government support or from collusive agreements among individuals" (Milton Friedman).
2. Law. A right granted by a government giving exclusive control over a specified commercial activity to a single party.
3. a. A company or group having exclusive control over a commercial activity.
3. b. A commodity or service so controlled.
3. c. Exclusive possession or control: arrogantly claims to have a monopoly on the truth.
3. d. Something that is exclusively possessed or controlled: showed that scientific achievement is not a male monopoly.
1. Maybe if SCO get's their way...
2. Maybe if Microsoft have their way...
3. Err, see above...
While I don't use Linux at present (although I have experimented with it on both x86 and PPC hardware) I favour OS X. Of Windows, OS X, and Linux, the three OS's are different in so many ways due to creation and control factors of all aspects of the product. A very small amount of research will highlight these differences, and who does exert control of development and code. When I read something like this and imagine the time and effort (and maybe cash, who knows) put into and this comes out, it really makes me wonder does sanity prevail: does the majority rule, or are all the idiots just on the same side?
The Mothership
It is no longer free if you are forced to use it.
Why not let GNU/Linux/BSD/etc stand on its own merits? Does it need the crutch of government mandates?
"Linux" is not a monopoly, and the press release does not claim it to be. The CCAGW press release says that every state IT purchase for the next two years, with no exceptions, must be Linux/OSS; this is what they claim is the monopoly (I'm not sure I agree with their view, but it's certainly a point of contention). There's worlds of difference here... instead of being nutcases like the writeup suggests with its slant, the CCAGW may actually have a valid issue with Mass. state government policy.
It took me a whopping total of thirty seconds to read the entire press release, surely I can expect the same of whoever took the time to do the writeup (and whoever was supposed to review and edit it).
the coolest club on
I totally agree with what he is saying instead of plain zealous folks. Do you really want Linux to win by being in such a one sided field? Linux should stand on its own merit as should any commercial software.
I for one welcome my new open source overlords!
All hail the peguins
My email to the group:
***************
Just a few comments re your press release on open source software.
(1) Open source cannot be a monopoly because anyone can write it or supply it at any price (the free market) The difference between open source and closed source software is that open source software can be changed/improved by the government in any way it likes and by hiring anyone it likes or doing the work itself (whichever is cheapest... again the free market) That is impossible with closed-source software- only the manufacturer can change it, if it wants, and at the price the manufacturer chooses.
(2) Anyone can offer support services for open source sofware. If one group charges too much, use a different group-- the free market again. You will find many different companies ranging from small ones to IBM offering such services.
In contrast, only the manufacturer of closed-source software can properly support the software because only it can fix bugs and issue enhancements to its own, secret code. Not so for open source.
Your press release was startling in missing these important facts and this unfortunately damages your group's reputation.
**************
NOTE: I am a Canadian but I feel it's worth pointing these things out to my Mass. neighbours. I hope my American friends will do the same favour should they see similar errors in Canadian hands.
Don't care about sending emails, it's a very small organization to care about, i bet showing up on slashdot was the maximum thing they've done until now.
As a citizen of Mass. myself, I can't help but laugh at the stupidity of this! How is it a monopoly?
A monopoly is when a single company takes control of an industry and prevents competitors from doing business. What company is taking control? RedHat? MandrakeSoft? SuSE? None that I know of.
How is competition being blocked? They could switch to a propietary system. The IT guy decided to ban propietary software and use Linux. Well, he's the IT guy for a reason. He's paid to make these educated decisions. But he could always change his mind... The governor could fire him and use Windows. He's the Chief Information Officer, not the Pope! So let the guy do his job.
And I'm not going to comment on "Linux" being a monopoly and Microsoft not! That's another topic in itself.
Hypocrisy is the 8th deadly sin.
...and I thought that evolution had weeded out these kinds of people.
Esoteric reference.
It is critical that taxpayers receive the best quality programs at the least cost.
Their other point is correct as well:
Under the state's proposed "Freeware Initiative," there would be no exceptions to the rule permitting only open source/Linux software.
While it's good to ALLOW or to PROMOTE open-source, I do not belive in the adoption of open-source by force. It's when we force people to do things that we run in to trouble. I believe in free-enterprise, the system that our nation is founded on. Massachusetts has in fact reverted to a state-sponsored monopoly on software. However, since it's LINUX, everyone on Slashdot seems to think it's ok. Why not just enact a law like Oregon, where they force the CONSIDERATION of linux. Thus, if Windoze happens to work better for a specific application, use it. If Linux or Novell or Irix work better, use them. That's true innovation and free-enterprise.
On the other hand, the article asserts that:
Maintenance, training and support are far more expensive with open source than proprietary software.
Without giving any reference to studies or data. This is evidence that the article is in part an OPINION piece and thus the entire article should be taken(read) with a grain of salt, so to speak.
I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
I'm sick of reading apologists' remarks on how Linux is not the best tool for the job. Learn that Open Source does NOT mean Linux!! Open Source means that the source code is included with the final product such that it is always available and the government cannot be screwed by someone going out of business. This is a damn good thing. Whether it is satisfied by an existing package such as apache, a custom-written package, or an existing closed-source product relicensed under an open-source license (say, selling MS SQL Server and including the compilable source). There is nothing unfair about requiring that any software used in our government must be available for all members of the governed for all time. Open-source is the perfect way to enforce this. The government is not a business. Stop thinking of it as one.
It's time for Governor Romney to bring Massachusetts into the twenty-first century by dropping the lawsuit and opening up the procurement process. The state's taxpayers deserve nothing less.
Good grief, what have the poor taxpayers done to deserve that?!
I can't say I know all that much about this Massachussetts "Freeware Initiative," but what I did find leads me to believe that it mandates the use of freeware if possible. Now, Linux may be freeware, but freeware is not necessarily Linux. It could be Darwin, or FreeBSD, or whatever else. Also, it will frequently not be possible to use a freeware OS, as a given task may require the use of some proprietary package which runs only on Windows or some other proprietary OS. IANAL, but that "if possible" would seem to be a loophole through which one could drive a Univac.
Furthermore, it would be pretty hypocritical for the state of Massachussetts to sue Microsoft for abusing its monopoly, and at the same time help MS maintain its monopoly by running Windows on all its computers. The policy may seem a bit heavy handed, but state agencies may well need a kick in the butt before they'd even consider looking at open source software. This kind of policy will at least compel them to consider that option and justify their use of proprietary software, and that can only be a good thing.
Who says that they're talking about Linux when they say open source? They could be talking about any flavor of BSD, or Plan9...or Windows if Microsoft Open Sourced their OS. All of the exclusion is affected by decisions the OS vendor/creators makes rather than by the government.
And the muscular cyborg German dudes dance with sexy French Canadians
The best argument for governments to require use of open source appears to be that open source software can (in theory) be obtained and used by any citizen, without requiring any citizen to pay for a commercial product.
This argument is like requiring that all government offices be in walking distance of all citizens - since otherwise poverty stricken citizens would have to buy a car to get to the office in question. People can use a PC in a library, use a friend's PC, rent a PC by the hour in some stores, etc - it just isn't a significant burden.
Regretable as it may seem, the fact is that Windows and most Microsoft products are far more commonly available IN PRACTICE than Linux and open source products.
In fact, the most likely outcome of government requiring use of applications that run on Linux is that those applications will all quickly be ported to Windows if they have not already, so that they can be used by everyone, not just those adept enough to set up a Linux system.
So while I consider the law somewhat silly, I find this group's fretting equally ridiculous.
Let's straighten out this BS: US Gov'ts are supposed to be created "of the people, by the people, for the people". OK, so now gov't existing as a public entity is now an example of communism??? No, morons. Gov't is "by the people, for the people" and therefore must be accessible by the people (hence the term "public" whatever) -- the people who have freedom to choose what they want, what software they want to use, which brand of soda to drink. If the gov't is public (and it should be) and is created "of the people" (who, by the way, are supposed to rotate in and out of office without making a career of politics), then the next people to enter gov't must have the freedom to make some dicisions (on their constituents' behalves [word?]) including deciding to/not to spend money on Office licenses. In the event we decide not to spedn that money this term, the data has to be open enough that an alternative product may be acquired to work with documents created by previous administrations.
I'm not going to argue communist philosophy, but when [software] corporations get involved in the "community" and "share" their assets (i.e. money), would that not also fit the communism bill? Anyway, folks like SCO and MS who deride the GPL need to get over it and realize that freedom means choice, and if my company wants to write and release protected by copyright law and the GPL, then I'll excercise my freedom to do just that. But don't for a minute assume that if you can't operate your own business under such things that it's suddenly un-American, communist and evil - I'll just do business differently, and probably be better for it. At least I'm Free.
What the heck is a boondoogler?
"People mistakenly refer to Linux as 'free' software because it can be freely altered and distributed. Not necessarily freely altered or distributed. In fact if SCO has anything to do with it people will be paying one million... <smirks> one billion smackerooonis
Yet while the software itself is free, the cost to maintain and upgrade it can become very expensive. Hrmm Expensive? I think not.
Windows reboots per day = how many? Employee downtime due to reboots = How many? Not to mention costs of licenses. I agree 100%, but not in the way you may think
I don't know if I agree or if I don't...
MoFscker
It's important to remember that many cities and countries around the world are considering open source as a viable alternative to the status quo:
- Austria
- Brasil
- Denmark
- Germany
- Japan
And many, many more.
Virtually all the big software companies (except one) are migrating their tools to GNU/Linux.
So, Open Source isn't the communist menace that some people would like you to believe. On the contrary, Open Source is totally against centralized control.
If Microsoft wants its software to be considered, clearly they only have to GPL Windows XP, at which point it would meet the criteria set forth.
So quit all your whiny-headed yammering about "its not fair".
It is completely. You people are taking the decision out of context, and twisting it all around. If there were some critical app that only windows could handle, do you think they're going to toss that functionality out the window? Hell no. It will just mean that the state has 4 or 5 windows machines, instead of 0.
Effectively, this is about changing the default platform. If they say "we'll choose the best for each application" then loads of brainless state employees would demand windows boxen, so they can play solatarie on the taxpayers time. Without this edict, the default becomes windows, whether or not its the best. I for one, can't see how it could be any worse... and if the government has more trouble creating all sorts of documentation (about the only thing a bureacracy is good for), would that be so horrible?
Y'all ought to check out how CAWG seems to applaud the death of any and all MS Antitrust work. In fact, it appears to be a group founded by the Reagan administration.
Sounds like a shill to me.
Linux is not a company or even a singular entity that could profit finically from such a thing. Calling Linux a monopoly when it comes to operating systems is like calling motorized vehicles a monopoly in transportation. The fact that the word 'monopoly' was ever associated with Linux does nothing more than enforce my belief in the alliance of collective thought and ignorance.
Seriously, the only reference I can find on Google is another rant against it.
I'm inclined to believe that the press release is misrepresenting the facts. In fact, the other press release that I found here [www.softwarechoice.org] says that it will be "an effor requiring that all IT expenditures in 2004 and 2005 be made on open source/Linus software/platforms if possible." This seems a little different that requiring that all systems be open source, which seemed to be implied by the CCAGW press release.
I found this[www.miami.com], which gives a very little bit more information, talking about "open standards".
andy
Life is life . . . everything else is just a stupid T-shirt slogan.
Basically, the article is accusing the state, not the OS of being socialist. My next point is best brought up with this quote:
... unless, of course, you will only accept official releases, in which case, you may as well settle for some Microsoft OS that you can set to a nice screen saver to look at while you wait for it to crash again.
People mistakenly refer to Linux as 'free' software because it can be freely altered and distributed. Yet while the software itself is free, the cost to maintain and upgrade it can become very expensive.
Since when does it cost a dime to upgrade Linux??? IT'S ALL AVAILABLE OFF THE INTERNET FOR FREE!
Esoteric reference.
They can insist on minimal quality standards. The product must load, for example. It ought not lose all the user's data in the course of operation. It would be nice if it didn't cause cancer. That sort of thing.
They can insist on interoperability, open protocols and document formats, etc. The Mass policy is just shorthand for that.
If MS wants to submit a linux distro, they'd qualify. But any purchaser can reasonably set standards that effectively exclude Windows and Office, just by insisting on products with the above features.
There are sound reasons for insisting on open products. Vendor lock-in is expensive. They *always* extract monopoly rent. IBM did when they could, MS has been doing so for at least 15 years.
There's the monoculture argument - mass worms. Linux on the desktop, with one of the friendlier distros, is not noticibly harder to use. It is somewhat *different* to use, but not by as much as the difference between win95 and winxp. The same amount of investment in training will yeild the same proficiency, and lower costs because the stuff is not as nightmarish.
I work at an understaffed IT dept. in an underfunded institution. I have spent the last couple of weeks fighting the nachi worm. Don't even try to tell me windows TCO is lower.
They sure do smell like a grassroots front for Microsoft...
Microsoft supported by dead people
Slashdot mistitles an article to sustain the entertaining battle to have open source software everywhere.
I don't see any "misreading" going on here...
What's their problem? Do they think Linux is just one single, unified operating system?
Linux is just a generic term. Their are a lot of distributions and vendors out there competing for market share...
Microsoft's overpriced software is a true government waste of money, just as their lobbying efforts are a waste of the time of elected officials. I'd like to see a federal anti-bribery law such that anyone in appointed or elected public found to accept monetary donations would be eligible for a fine in the amount of double the amount in question and/or a 1-year jail sentence. This makes it the smallest felony possible by the jail sentence. That would eliminate most government waste overnight, but it will probably never happen.
BTW, Personally I found Democracy in America laden with author bias.
It was written by a Frenchman who toured Cincinnati and other Ohio Valley towns in the 1820s then decided to write a book about how our society was going to split into three countries based on Virginia, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania. I'll grant that he was accurate about the tyranny of the majority threatening property rights (go to google and look up Wal-mart and eminent domain in Alabama, Colorado, or Ohio). Recall that France expressed concerns about a unified United States threatening European manufacturers once it became a true industrial power. While he had a unique insight into frontier democracy, he also was apparently using most of his book to try and justify the point already mentioned. The role of the French in flaming the secessionist fires of the American Civil War is worth examining if anyone is interested.
Remember, In Soviet Russia, The Computer Programs YOU!
As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
This person understood the article better than the guy who posted it.
And requiring software to be distributed under the GPL in ordered to be considered for government contracts is going to either force some vendors to sit on the sidelines or to GPL their software. There is no advantage to Microsoft to releasing Windows XP under the GPL. The reason for this is simple. While Microsoft can still charge for the software, anyone who requests the source from them can then go release the source freely and Microsoft can't do anything about it. That's what the GPL does. And, of course, they have to be able to produce the binaries from the source. This means that once someone decides to release the source, then anyone and everyone can have Windows without paying Microsoft. This isn't conducive to commercial success from selling software. It's not a viable option for most companies. So that's a moronic statement to make. And if you read what the government of Massachusetts is saying, then they can't have a few Windows machines. And it's not about choosing the platform of choice for state employees. It's about getting the job done at the lowest cost. And if it's cheaper to use Windows than Linux, then by all means, run Linux. It's about studying bids provided by competitors and picking the one that offers the services you need at the lowest cost. I'm guessing you don't know anything about government, because that's how government contracts are given out. The wishes of the state employees here to play Solitaire would not be taken into consideration. This, in effect, forces vendors of closed source operating systems and closed source software to sit on the sidelines, and doesn't necessarily provided the lowest cost solution to the state. And that's why this group has an objection to the law. It's a legitimate objection. If you're not blinded by zealotry, you'll see their argument.
Help me. I've been modbombed by a few people with entirely too much time on their hands.
I think the support issue is not relevent. Each mandated upgrade to windows+N costs about as much in training as moving to a recent, friendly distro. The long term costs of vendor lock-in are enormous. When you hear them touting a subscription, and claiming that customers were clamoring to pay more, and more often, you have to realize it's time to go cold turkey. Maybe MS SQL is better than any other MS product, (and I find IIS, Windows, and Exchange to be abominations) but what are the licensing restrictions and costs? Don't forget to count staff time for fighting worms. They exist in the *nix world, too, but nowhere near the numbers. MS worms are wildly out of proportion to market share.
So, sure, the taxpayers should ask the questions. But the answer is, "This is a reasonable policy that will pay dividends for as long as state government uses computers."
The Mass. policy specifies "Open Standards" software, NOT open source. They are not forcing the use of Linux or other OSS software.
They are attempting to break vendor lockin and monopolies by allowing multiple vendors compete on implementation, i.e. the complete opposite of what the CCAGW knob jockies are claiming.
I hope that wasn't too long for your extra short attention span. You can go back to trying to get those boots off of the powercables.
What's redundant about saying that socialisum and even communisum are not necessarily a bad thing?
Oh wait, I get it I mentioned Americans. That's fair.
All I ask is you hold off invading me until I've got my WMD production sorted out.
Karma: Bad. Calmer, good.
No where did I see MA saying anything about anybody being excluded from anything. I saw writing to the effect that they wanted to support systems based on open standards and open file formats and such. MS, Borland or any other BSA member can choose to play or not to play. Now of course their business models do not support this but who's problem is that?
The data belongs to the people of MA not a vendor.
Got Code?
OSS is also a great way for Massachusetts to keep taxes dollars spent in state, since linux software is cheap/free and you can pay locals to support it. Just a reminder that the same Market forces that make OSS appeal to foreign governments work on local governments too :).
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
By the very nature of software any auditing would have to fall under benchmarking or testing of the software for flaws or performance failures. Since many NDA's prevent releasing poor performance results while also preventing the release of source code, the auditors will not agree to the NDA.
What is to prevent a proprietary software company from including "features" which allow ease of access to classified government information to any hacker but not to the people who are being governed? Government should be transparent to its citizens not to its companies.
The only safe choice is OSS, preferably from a university that is funded to develop OSS for government use.
NarratorDan
"If you're not confused by quantum mechanics, you really don't understand it." - Niels Bohr
I don't really care what software Massachusetts buys, but you have to wonder about the credibility of people who rant about the evils of the Microsoft monopoly and then turn around and cheer when a state decides to tie itself down with another monopoly.
I thought "choice" was the cornerstone of open source. Guess some folks have been taking hypocrisy lessons.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
They end their comment with: "###"
Perhaps at least someone got the joke that they were bashing Linux?
Right, I'm going to go back to writing shell scripts now, and then shooting myself for making this connection in my mind, much less this post.
I assert that my comment is only my opinion, not that of any employer, past, present or future.
This supposed "lack of competition" could double the cost of freeware! The horrors! That would effective raise the cost of freeware to free! Don't take it from em! Show em whose boss! Tell em you'll only pay half of free!
Really. Proprietary vendors will be effectively barred from competing for state contracts? Whose stopping em? And technically, since Linux is GPLed, couldn't I put in my on bid at half the price of anyone else? Yeah. That creates almost infinate different suppliers. So much for the "limiting competition".
Stop the Slashdot effect! Don't read the articles!
The devil is in the details ain't it...people tend to read what they want to read.
Blar.
The post about the linked article is generally misrepresentative factually, and yet it was a pro-linux post, so Timothy let it through. Nice work Timothy. Did you bother to RTFA?
... all I ever seem to see them ask for is equality in procurement, Government and it's agencies should be able to choose software on merit not on dictated policy.
I don't see any policy that says all trucks bought by a particular government should be Ford, all I see is Government issuing a tender looking for best value in Truck supply.
The same should apply to software, preference legislation is a bad thing, markets will change, product availability will change... if we let Governments write this into law then when Linux is a dead OS 10 years from now they'll still be buying it 5 years later. A scenario under which we all lose.
Let them make a choice based upon best value, best value to Government and therefore best value to the tax payer.
Wanting to see Linux preference policy in procurement is ridiculous, you should really be wanting to see Linux win in a level playing field.
This article is a stretch of the truth by anybodies imagination, it makes a point though, and a good point at that.
These guys aren't nutcases, and they aren't stupid.
However, it is clear to me that they're more interested in supporting their own unpublished agenda versus fighting government waste.
Their little rant doesn't merit a quiet, personal reply - their statement was a public, well-crafted, and baseless commentary which they can leverage to gain additional support from some of their corporate sponsors.
Their statement merits a quick and complete public reply, exposing their failure to support the principles that they pretend to stand for.
"Against government waste?" Bullshit. I looks like they're for lining their own pockets first.
What did you do? I offer you this to modify and use as you see fit, if you desire.
_ NewsRelease_09302003b
To: media@cagw.org
Greetings,
CAGW Complained recently in http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=news
that free software is a "monopoly". I fail to see that, given that "free software" is not even a company. It is a software design concept. Furthermore, the Massachusetts proposal does nothing like what you have suggested. But let me get to the real points.
I seriously wonder where your organisation gets its ideas. The costs of maintaining Microsoft licenses are substantial, and in addition to wasting valuable taxpayer resources whenever a proprietary software system goes down, the security implications are simply astounding.
Don't get me wrong. I am a conservative, and I do care about government waste. But your press release was complete B.S. (to put it nicely).
I also find it highly hypocritical that the site www.cagw.org is running Apache/1.3.12 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.6.5 OpenSSL/0.9.6e ApacheJServ/1.1.2 mod_fastcgi/2.2.10 on FreeBSD.
Both Apache and FreeBSD are free software. Expensive to keep up, eh, CAGW?
You'd probably be shocked to know that our nation's military and national security interests are using free software such as Linux (GASP!) to keep America safe. Might as well rush them off to the latest insecure Microsoft products and let the terrorists come on in, eh?
I have one real serious question for you: How much did Microsoft pay you?
Yours Truly,
Jonathan Graham
Buford "Mad Dog" Tannen
What I don't understand is this crap about how Linux costs less at first but in the end costs more to administrate and support? How is that possible?
I've used Linux, FreeBSD, and Windows NT in a ISP setting for about 5 years. We had close to 20,000 dialups and about 3000 web hosting customers. All of our Linux/BSD machines would run perfectly with over 365 day uptimes accross the board. Hundreds of hosting customers per machine and a Radius server running Radiator and mySQL that was in the 2 year uptime range when I left. The only time we ever rebooted was to add hardware or swap the kernel.
NT, on the other hand was a thorn in the side of everyone in the NOC. The machines not only needed to be patched constantly but the machines were constantly locking or IIS would just decide to start eating 100% cpu. We tried everything and the only thing to keep them stable was to simple have the day shift reboot them all as soon as they came in every single day.
I know from ISPCon and other industry events that our company was not the only ones to experience this. It got to the point at ISPCon to where if you were a vendor selling software and it didn't run on Linux....you probably were not going to sell any software that weekend.
So, in our case, Linux not only save us money up front but all over the place. I want to know what exactly these costs are that make Linux more expensive to administrate. The only thing I can think of is that a competent Linux guy is going to cost you much more than a competent NT guy (if there is such a thing). This I think is a good thing. Not only do you get a better OS, you spend the money you save on more clueful personel.
I think I have to.. yep. I have to take a shit.
Buying only Open Source/Linux does not create a monopoly because Open Source/Linux companies can still compete with each other.
On the other hand if you decided to buy only Windows software, it would create one because Microsoft is the only vendor.
I'm wondering if somehow the CAGW is actually against free markets and freedom of choice, not to mention a completely care-free attitude regarding how taxpayer money is spent. I think you forget the purpose of government, government that is "of the people, by the people, and for the people". Future officials must have the freedom to innovate for their constituents - improving the efficiency of government processes, reducing constituents' tax bills, and so on.
Let's suppose for a moment that currently elected/appointed/hired government leaders chose a particular monopoly's proprietary software. (Keep in mind that you are not purchasing software, but only a license to use the software; software after all is intellectual property and one may only use licensed software in a manner consistent with its license.) This same monopoly has already decided for you how your hardware will be used (precisely the reason one purchases an operating system) and in what format data is stored. After two or three years there is usually cause to upgrade hardware and software components. By this time, there has likely been a change in government staffing, especially for elected officials. Those officials in office now have to balance a budget not only tp improve the local schools, but also to provide for this system-wide technological upgrade. If an option is to obtain software that has no licensing fee attached, then this becomes a very attractive path for the budget staff - improve the hardware, while obtaining replacement software for little cost. At this point, open standards *must* have been adopted to insure that older documents and files can now be read by the replacement software that saved the local taxpayers $7.5 million for the next three years.
If open standards are not mandated by government for government, then government will be forever forced to purchase from the same vendor or "locked in"; when prices inflate astronomically, and the poeple who foot the bill insist on reduced expenditures by their government, there would be no recourse to reduce those expenditures because the only available vendor is the one upping the price of access to public data.
Remember, in our example, that we licensed the software? Suppose that in rectifying some procedural inefficiencies within a given government, government employees changed the way licensed software is to be used. Unless all employees involved in this transition are legal scholars, they will not be aware (nor are they interested in) whether such activity falls outside the purchased license. At some point the vendor hears of these changes and is less than pleased, because now use of its software falls outside the scope of what is licensed. They offer two remedies: license the software for new usage at an exhorbitant price, or stop using the software. If money is not budgeted for this oversight (remember, the systems administrator is not a law graduate), then the alternatives are 1) acquire open source software to replace the proprietary software (now we're back to needing open standards so that interoperability functions) or 2) deny the local public elementary schools a 50% increase in the number of teachers that it needs to keep up with the growth of the community.
But maybe you think that because "public" goverment using taxpayer money to serve the "public" with "public" works and "public" schools in its community reflects too much communism as well.
The other people have made excellent points about everyone able to bid, but I'd also just point out that *BSD could be bid, and it has a less restrictive license than Linux.
OK, so the purchase price P is only 5% of the total cost T. Let's find the total cost for this nonimal Linux migration:
So even by their own arguments, CCAWG seems to prove that the total cost to own Linux is 0.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
"Government policies that close doors to competition are bad. Linux might work in some situations, but not in others"
If I read correctly, an open source OS could be bid; this includes the formidable *BSD family.
So this hardly is a mandate to use Linux.
This organization spends $3M a year according to its IRS Form 990s on PR. This isn't a research group, this is just another one of Microsoft's front groups, just like ACT and ITAA. Fuck em.
C
No one should be surprised by this. "Citizens Against Government Waste" is a very right-wing, pro-Microsoft group. They were definitely hitting for Microsoft during the anti-trust litigation, and this most recent anti-open-source rhetoric is right in line with their previous sentiments. From their front man Tom Schatz on the anti-trust suit: "This litigation was never about legal misconduct but about competitors hoping to leverage political pull to get the Department of Justice to do what their products could not ... Free-market competition may be a tough business, but innovation, not litigation, benefits society most in the long run."
~Tom Schatz, President CAGW, CAGW Press Release, 6/28/01 (from http://www.microsoft.com/freedomtoinnovate/newslet ter/finnews_062801_b.asp)
What is most insidious is the name of the group, which implies that they actually care about taxpayers and greater good of our country...
Look both ways before you cross the road.
I seriously doubt they have any sort of real "citizen" support. They are probably getting spill-over from all the corporate money that can't go where it used to because of McCain-Feingold.
Here is the email I sent to them: (you should send one, too. Let these folks know you are on to them)
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
is bliss. Or so I hear.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Your sig # 1 speaks to me.
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
I thought it read:
Microsoft is proving itself the most technologically inept state in the nation...and started wondering why anyone would disagree with that statement.
Good stuff. Sounds like a bunch of righwingers with stock in monopolysoft.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/29/tech/mai n531230.shtml
i n531230.shtml
Dec. 3, 2002: West Virginia will join Massachusetts as the only states to continue the courtroom antitrust battle against Microsoft Corp., pressing a U.S. appeals court to reconsider tougher sanctions against the world's largest software company.
A pro-Microsoft group, the Washington-based Citizens Against Government Waste, quickly attacked West Virginia's decision as improper given that state's economic conditions. The group said the state faces a $200 million deficit and teachers have been warned they may not receive raises next year.
"The taxpayers of West Virginia have every right to question the attorney general's priorities," said the group's president, Tom Schatz. "What is Darrell McGraw thinking by using scarce tax dollars to pursue costly litigation? This appeal is unrealistic, imprudent and irrational."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/29/tech/ma
June 28, 2001: an appellate court's decision to overturn the order to split Microsoft in two
Citizens Against Government Waste, though, took a position much closer to Microsoft. "This decision marks a return to rational antitrust jurisprudence and is a victory for taxpayers, investors, and the entire information economy," CAGW President Tom Schatz said in a statement.
http://news.com.com/2100-1001_3-269198.html
Conservative organizations will always choose industry self regulation over government regulation, even if it's a monopoly.
http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=news
I feel that you have mischaracterized the role and value proposition of the "Open Source" community.
Firstly, there is nothing monopolistic about "Open Source" as your title so suggests. Absolutly anyone is able to build proprietary components on top of open source projects. There are a number of very successful proprietary products that are selling quite will on top of Open Source infrastructure. Also, there is a large amount of software that is available that is far more cost-effective (read free) hence lowering the costs substantially for the taxpayers. In my mind this is a clear mischaracterization of the natire of the "Freeware Initiative".
Secondly, you unfortunately omit the data regarding the "boondoggle" you're referring to. You will find studies which claim "Freeware Initiative" solutions may cost more but invariably these studies have virtually no basis in fact. I personally can vouch that "Open Source" solutions are far more cost effective and reliable that many well regarded closed source initiatives.
Thirdly, in my mind, Massachusetts is highly regarded by many for it's technology and the Microsoft lawsuit was a total and utter disaster for the citizens of this country. Massachusetts is the shining light in holding the values of it's citizens above the values of corporate greed.
Lastly, if Massachusetts tax payers do end paying for developent of new "features" or "producrts", each and every tax payer will also have the opportunity to directly benefit from that development and not some proprietary product that has no interest in providing for the tax payer.
As the information age unfolds, the processes and systems adoped by the govenment must be able to be scrutinized by it's citizens. If these systems are proprietary and closed, this will not be achievable and a loss of faith in the government will result. The move by the MA government is laudible and inevitable for a free and democratic society.
The CCAGW, as an purported advocate of the citizen, should start looking more closely at the wishes of it's citizens and not be seen as a voice for corporate greed, otherwise the purpose of CCAGW's existance may evaporate.
Lessons you should learn, in no particular order:
#1 Sarcasm.
#2 Business. Legitimate, competent software vendors make money selling support. For instance, on a smaller scale, my employer "bought" a custom application. Do they own the copyright? I don't know. Does it matter? Not really, they don't want to sell it to others, just use it. And we couldn't sell it either, we can't support it. That's what the author is paid to do, we find a bug, he fixes it. We need another features, he codes it. In that sense, source code, copyrights, they're meaningless.
Could this apply to Microsoft, and a major operating system? Certainly. But what handicaps Microsoft, is that their OS's are generally unsupportable. How can you sell support, when even your so called experts, the people who wrote it, can't fix it?
And don't go thinking this is something that happens with big software, it isn't. SAP/R3 is practically handcrafted for every single customer. Big customers, and to a smaller extent, smaller customers get this treatment from Oracle, IBM, and Sun.
#3 Hypocrisy. If getting the job done at a lower cost is the concern, why the complaints? Sure, 20 years from now, linux may cost more than M$ somehow, but for now, this edict seems practical. Hell, its unlikely to even last some theoretical time til it's irrelevant, so again, why the complaints?
#4 Reperations. Sometimes people that have been treated extremely unfairly in the past, deserve a little favoritism to even things up. I don't care much for affirmative action now, mind you, but all the various civil rights programs of the 50s, 60s and 70s hardly went too far. Maybe linux deserves something like this, for a limited period of time.
As anyone who remembers high-school math can assert, infinite cashflows have finite present value (and that's why governments come up with stuff like perpetuities and consols).
Somewhat against what the article would claim, switching to Open Source has high costs _right now_, and gets gradually cheaper as knowledge deepens and disseminates within the organization. Even coming up with an open source install where there were no computers before can be expensive, as the whole Linux-for-administrative-automation deal is quite half-baked yet.
I think that just about explains why the corporate world still uses proprietary software en masse. Network externalities (the fact that other people using Windows makes Windows more useful for you) take care of the rest.
A couple of weeks ago, WinXP went snafu for the usual reasons Windows goes snafu for, and I considered once again getting rid of it. I popped in the Red Hat CD that had been sitting around here, and found out it wouldn't support my el-cheapo network card. Besides, I'm not too sure it'd read (let alone write) my abCD-formatted CD-RW's. abCD is a handy piece of software that came with my cd-burners that makes cd-burning seamless making it work like another disk drive.
I happen to have an actual life (and little time to invest in the learning-tweaking-coding curve) and actual practical uses for this computer. So I'm running 98SE instead.
You know, for all the Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt that was produced as a result of the 40 year cold war, which has been over for 13 years now, I find it remarkable how the old bed time stories to frighten little children with have remained in American society.
For all its woes, despotic tyranical leadership and repression, Socialist/Communist systems had some good things about them. Two of those were free health care to the whole population (I'm not referring to the quality of such care here) and extremely high literacy rates.
Take Cuba for example. It may be desperately poor and the quality of medical care might be low due to lack of medical supplies, but I would be prepared to bet some money on the fact that more people have access to doctors there than in the US, where I read on the Washington Post a couple of days ago, that some 40% of working adults now have no medical insurance, and in the same bet, I would wager that the percentage of adults that are literate is higher than in the US.
Just something to think about instead of the usual buzzword/bogeyman comments on the Soviet Union/Communism/Socialism.
Someone had to say it. Also many other operating systems provide source with the right 'insentives'. If I am not mistaken, Qnix has done this in the past among others. Also, most anything that compiles on linux can be moved to most other Posix/*nix systems with some effort. The press release also pushes the Linux vs MS fable. I know most of the shops that I have worked in used multiple OSes from proprietary unixes to linux to MS to VAX to Mainfraimstuff and cp m/. I think they are smoking from the hype pipe. Open standards (not source) and source access are more important than being your vendor's bitch.
How many of you know of a government institution whos CTO DOESN'T mandate what software goes on the end user's desktop (i.e. - what OS and related software that the IT department officially supports) or on the servers for that matter?
I know that a university may not be typical of all state run institutions but I suspect that it is. And I know for damn sure that there were no PCs coming out of IT Services with anything but the most current version of windows that the machine could handle. Linux . . . yeah, right. The CS department got to use linux, but only if they fdisk and installed everything themselves. No support for them, but then, they didn't really need it.
What do you expect from conservatives? They won't even consider anything that is remotely similar to socialism. Needless to say, this foundation seems to have been created by Ronald Regen. If Star Wars isn't the biggest waste in recent memory I don't know what is...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places
The Road-Toll Association lambasted the Federal government for building public roads. "If public roads are free anyone can use them!"
I can't tell the difference between Bush and Clinton but man these people are NUTS! I think now I just anti enslavement, be it welfare or monopolistic companies like MS I'm not a fan of either!
Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
I thought the first line of offense was comparing your adversary's position to Nazis, then the communists when the facts don't completely back your position. I'd not be very interested in hearing their definition of monopoly when Linux has neither a dominant market share, nor has a powerful corporation to head "monopolistic" conspiracies. It would have been nice of them to provide us with a list of operating systems NOT backed by selfish monopolies.
My favorite quote is "Like all procurement decisions, the best policy on the use of software is to place all products on equal footing." By its very nature, Linux is on a lower footing than an OS backed by a corporation. It doesn't have the financial backing of multi-million dollar lobbyists, PAC's, and marketing teams. It is in the position it's in today ONLY because of its own merits and achievements.
Vendor lock-in is extremely low compared to closed source OS's because the source can be easily modified to work with almost any flavor of Unix or BSD. A bit more modification and it could probably be made to work outside of a Unix like environment. Even if your applications are closed source, that is only one vendor to worry about. If you are using a closed source OS, you now have to break free of their hold (contractual or otherwise) before you move to something else. At least an application provider would be relatively easy to convince in porting their application to another OS.
Forgot the part I was referencing: They explain why Linux is a 'monopoly,' how this policy is 'socialist' and why 'The old Soviet Union could not have done this any better.'
When describing a state as an entity capable of ethical (or unethical) behavior, eventually the recently held concept of a group psuedo-person, so inflated by corporations breaks down and "the buck stops somewhere". With that culpability must come the ability to make choice.
In allowing that a state has that ability, you allow that as a consumer the state may make any decision they find necessary. The state's decision that they will only purchase an open source product is immediately defensible from a source-escrow point of view, if you happen to live in that state, and you disagree, do something about it. The "state" is no moral entity, as the electorate, fix the problem if you find one, however, getting hot about source avaiability, inspectability, and free adaptation is a bit silly.
The debate really comes down to Proprietary, Corporation owned Software vs. Open Source (whoever created it owned) software.
Is there a cogent argument for how the principles of Open Source software are socialist and bad? If there is, I have yet to see it.
Man, cheesy puffs are the one of the best snacks while coding. I just can't get enough of them! You can get big barrels of them from some company called "Utz" at Sam's Club.
Speaking of Walton-owned chains.. Does anybody else feel like they've walked into some kind of giant corporate washing machine whenever they walk into a Super Walmart? I swear it seems like the scene from Minority Report where all those advertisements are going on everywhere. It's a washing machine all right. A brainwashing machine. These buildings are freaking huge and impersonal. There's one ten minutes from me, and they're putting in another one five minutes from me in the other direction. They're only like 12 minutes away from each other. What's up with that?
Open standards forever! I think government should mandate that all public records be stored using open standards, and that the software to access those records can always be available. Maybe some kind of escrow-like thing where if computers are no longer compatible with the software, the government gets the source code to update the software. Also, the public shouldn't have to pay for the software to access public records; it should be freely available.
A solution to the problem with music today
Saying that the government doesn't have the right to choose open data formats is completely bunk. The government should not be required to allow proprietary, locked-in data formats which stifle competition, and lock out people who use open source software.
My state shouldn't have the right to choose what sort of software it uses? That sounds pretty stupid. Keep your filthy hate mongering hands off my state, and what the hell is a council for citizens. Seriously, if we wanted someone to tell us that switching to something that was cheaper was waste then I'd do it myself.
The problem with the anti-open source government initiative rhetoric is that it presupposes that all groups are doing everything in their power to "sell their product". I can only imagine how much cash Microsoft and the like spend to ensure that their product brochures and seminars are available to every government official who has the authority to purchase paper-clips. They have every reason to secure those lucrative government contracts.
However, open source software simply doesn't do this. There is tons of good code out there, and more coming every day... and instead of sending out fleets of marketeers to try and sell the stuff, OSS developers have devoted their time to writing even better code. Yes, there are some companies like Red Hat, but there is so much more out there that isn't being pushed.
So, the question becomes, how do we ensure that governments give the same notice to OSS as they give to proprietary software and their glossy full page ads? I believe the solution is inherent to government... we the people DEMAND it! We demand that money be spent wisely and that every rock be overturned before purchases are made.
To that end, legislatures are taking up legislation mandating that agencies investigate such software options before making a purchase... that they actually go out and research instead of just opening up the latest issue of PC Magazine. Otherwise, the decision makers in government (most of whom are not accountable to us pesky voters) are not going to do the work to protect our interests.
Only 120 characters... who can summarize their entire world understanding in 120 characters?!
As a former Contracts Administrator for a computer manufacturer that specialized in the government and educational sectors, I can state from experience that Open Bidding in the (US) government is a joke.
..."
Often, the specs will be written in such a way that only one company can fill them. The specs are written by the reps for the company and then given to the IT guys at the Bureau of Whatever. ("Hey Joe. This will fit your needs perfectly. Just insist on these specs in your RFP.")
Multiple Award Schedule contracts like GSA contracts are just as big a joke. If you sell commodity products, like washers, nails, or computers, then there are 500 other companies that have a GSA contract to sell the exact same thing. Who do the buyers buy from? In the computer hardware scene- The usual suspects: Dell, IBM, HP (Or, its bought from the company that has the rep that actually wrote the RFP. Depends on particular product)
Low cost doesn't matter. They go with what they see in the Gvt Buyer trade rags. Government buyers LIVE by the axiom "Never ever got fired for buying
Another point:
These people that are in charge of buying 5000 desktop computers for the Dept of Whatever are also the same people that are in charge of buying 500000 rolls of TP every 6 months.
I guarantee they are more concerned about their own ass, than they are about the computer that the peon on the frontline is using.
----
Okay. Personal plug time.
Now that I've said my piece, and probably killed any chance for a career in my preferred field... let me back up and say that Contracts Admin was a GREAT job. I liked doing it. And, I would like to do it again. I can fix your problems, whether you are business-to-government or government-to-business.
Hire me.
(Go to my journal and say something. I'll see it)
That's my brother you're talking about, there.
----
Not to be confused with Col.
While their efforts are a bit misguided, they do have a point. Leaving out any exception allowing commercial software to be used is downright silly, and it could not only hurt developers of custom solutions, but the users in government of said solutions, who would have to take dramatic steps to ensure they could do their jobs!
I do take issue at the silliness of their TCO arguement though -- any software will require retraining, even, in some instances, updates between versions (For instance, the last place I worked has spent good sums of money on training for techs trying to upgrade their aging Windows NT 4.0 servers to a Windows 2000 ActiveDirectory platform, and the entire staff was retrained to some degree when we upgraded from NT4 to Windows 2000), and the fact that software does, even in their worst-case theoretical model, constitute 5-10% of the total cost, make it a loss leader even before you factor in the lowered costs due to reduced virus proliferation.
It's been a long time.
I'm a sexy geek!
...but they do have a point. Not a very large one, and fairly well hidden, but a point nonetheless.
Open procurement processes are a Good Thing(tm). Letting anyone bid, and choosing the best solution is *GOOD*. Choosing a sub-group, and only letting them bid isn't a good idea, even if you think that sub-group contains the vendor with the best offer.
The way this SHOULD work is Mass. draws up a list of features, and solicits bids from everyone, probably in the format of $X upfront and $Y/per year.
The governors move was based on the idea the MS simply cannot offer a competitive bid. This lobby groups complaint is based on the idea that only MS can offer a competitive bid. The entire *point* of a procurement process is that we have no idea who is going to offer competitive bids, so we let everyone offer them.
(I've a feeling someone will feel compelled to reply with "but Open Source is a feature the Mass. government has chosen!". No. Open Source isn't a feature. Security, let's say, is a feature. Open Source may well be more secure, and Mass. may well desire security - but the proper way to achieve that is a contract clause that makes the vendor liable for all damages plus penalties for each and every security breach, *NOT* requiring a particular implementation that you hope is secure.)
I don't get the Taxachusetts moniker. I live here and pay 5% income tax, 5% sales tax and $.21/gallon gas tax. Doesn't seem so bad to me. New York has 4-6.85% income, 4% sales (plus $1.50 on cigarettes) and $.226 gas tax. Li'l Rhodie has 7% sales, $.31/gallon gas and a flat 1/4 of your federal income tax liability. West Virginians pay 6% sales, $.2535/gallon gas and 3-6.5% income tax. Californians endure a 7.25-8.25% sales tax, $.18/gallon sales tax and 1-9.3% income tax. Sure, I could move to Wyoming and pay less, but how many unix sysadmin jobs are there in Wyoming and what do they pay?
It is cowardly, and a betrayal of whatever it means to be a Jew, to act as a white man
-James Baldwin
They may be just people who don't understand technology ( IMHO ), have a nice day
So their tinfoil hats are wrong side out. These fruitcakes have their world view, don't disturb them with the facts. They won't thank you for it, nor will it affect their thinking.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
Some choice quotes which apply to the current Massachusetts law:
"We're going to be evaluating all projects to ensure conformance to open standards as we move forward and to retroactively move legacy systems to open standards," Kriss said. "We want to make sure what we build is interoperable and interchangeable, so that different applications can use the same data, so we won't have to be constantly reinventing and rethinking basic functionality."
The state will also give preference to open-source software, although it will continue to purchase proprietary products if they are found to be superior technologically or otherwise, Kriss said.
So, despite the misleading title of that story, they are not "outlawing" proprietary software. They are simply making the sound fiscal decision to go with open source and open standards over closed, unless such a choice doesn't make sense. The fact that the CAGW would charactetize this as giving a "monopoly" to "open source software" seems to indicate that they think no proprietary software could be considered superior, technologically or otherwise. If that's what they beleive, then it seems contrary to their stated goal of "small government" to argue that this policy is bad. Unless, of course, they have an alterior motive.
Surprisingly enough, at least one famous Libertarian agrees with me.
I just sent the following email off to cagw.org:
From: Douglas Alan
To: media@cagw.org
Subject: Newspeak
I am a citizen who is greatly opposed to government waste, yet your
recent press release stating that Massachusetts is setting up a monopoly
by insisting on open-source software for future purchases makes me
extremely irate. Your words are one of the worst examples of Newspeak I
have seen in recent years.
First of all, *any* company can provide an open-source solution,
including Microsoft, should they so chose. That's one of the whole
points of open-source software -- it allows competition on a level
playing field and thus thoroughly resists monopoly. Either you are just
not aware of what the word "monopoly" means or are being thoroughly
disingenuous.
Furthermore, it appears that you would like to see the hard-earned tax
dollars of the Massachusetts people get shoveled into the pockets of
large corporations. Every dollar that goes to proprietary solutions
sold by out-of-state vendors is a dollar that the people of
Massachusetts will never see again. On the other hand, every dollar
invested in an open-source solution goes to enhance software that the
people of Massachusetts will have in perpetuity.
In addition, your claim that open-source software ends up being more
expensive is absurd. I work for a university where we need to pinch
every penny. We would be utterly unable to do what we do if we used
primarily commercial software -- we would never be able to afford it. I
have been a software engineer and computer network administrator for
twenty years now, and I can assert with expertise and confidence that
proprietary software has always caused us much more trouble and expense
than open-source software.
And, in the long run, open-source software will become cheaper and
cheaper to deploy and maintain, while those locked into proprietary
software and data formats will be at the mercy of their suppliers, who
will, as always, milk them for as much as they can.
I'm not sure what your ulterior motives are, but they are clearly not to
fight pork in government. If it were, you would wholeheartedly embrace
open-source software as a remedy for pork. Sadly, you chose to be one
of those nefarious organizations who pretends to fight something while
secretly working for it. It makes me wonder where you get your funding
from. Could much of it be from proprietary software vendors who have a
lot to lose if their pork dries up?
Sincerely yours,
Douglas Alan
Software Engineer
MIT Center for Space Research
I say this because the CAGW refused to submit to a review of its charitable status, so it is now listed as a "Not Responding" charity by the charities review council of minnisota. This usually means that a group that once claimed to be a "charity" is now funded by people who do not wish their funding to be disclosed. Make of this what you will.
I must admit that I was rather disappointed in reading your press release regarding the adoption of open source software in Massachusetts. Mostly, I was confused when you called Linux a monopoly while providing no evidence of a corporation using either financial backing or superior market share to extort an advantage over other companies. Firstly, it has doesn't have the market domination of closed source, proprietary Unicies such as AIX or System V in the server/workstation market. Second, it doesn't have the market domination (or financial backing for lobbyists/PAC's) of Microsoft in the desktop market. Any law that forces the consideration or use of open source software is actually leveling the playing field. In the "equality" of yesterday, only products with such corporate backing would have been considered because open source developments didn't have the money for such a loud voice. Since you seem to understand cliche, "money talks"; except in the case of open source, where its' accomplishments do the talking.
I would also like to draw your attention to the statement "Proprietary vendors will be effectively barred from competing for state contracts, limiting competition and raising costs." In a traditional social and business model, reduced competition usually does result in a poorer product, less innovation, and increased costs. You must ask yourself the question "why?" As a company becomes a monopoly, it gains the power to keep better products and services from competing (hence less innovation). It does this to keep control of the market and therefore control the price. If no competitors or alternatives exist, the price can be raised to any amount. Since Linux is neither written by nor backed by a single company, relying on it would not put you in the same position as relying on the truly monopolistic Microsoft and its' Windows. Imagine two scenarios: In the first one, Microsoft is to operating systems as DeBeers is to diamonds. Who gets the money, who sets the price, and who has the control? Now, in the second scenario Linux is to operating systems as DeBeers is to diamonds. In this scenario who gets the money, who sets the price, and who has the control? The title of the press release proclaims "Mass. Taxpayers Hurt by Proposed Software Monopoly". Even if Linux were an assumed monopoly, I feel confident in presuming that you will never recommend Microsoft products for governmental use because it has been legally declared a monopoly.
It was very disheartening to hear your organization issuing such a press release and asking it to be taken seriously with such a lack in logical statements backed by [dis]provable facts and numbers. You talk about total cost of ownership, but offer no numbers or sources to back your opinion. Then you resort to cliche analogies to communism and rhetoric such as "state-imposed monopoly on software". I fail to understand how a state would NOT impose a monopoly on itself, in terms of operating systems. Wouldn't any OS it wholly adopted be considered a "state-imposed monopoly" on itself? Indeed many state controlled monopolies have existed for years. Many cities have only one water, steam, sewage, natural gas, or waste removal body which could be considered a legal monopoly and permitted to operate because they do so under supervision and control of the local government. Wouldn't Linux (adopted by a government) be more accurately compared to a local water co-op than to Standard Oil?
I also am concerned with the quote by Mr. Schatz stating "The old Soviet Union could not have done this any better..." with regards to the adoption of open source software. I am of the belief that anyone who so quickly compares their adversaries position with that of fascists or communists reverts to such name calling because they have weak evidence to back their position (hence the appeal to emotion rather than logic). If anything, I would compare Microsoft to a communist state. They would be the "state" and agreeing to their license would make you one of their subjects. They are
The problem I have with CCAGW is not just that they're wrong about OSS, but they're wrong about the relationship of procurement policy to enterprise architecture if their real objective is indeed cost savings.
To minimize TCO, not just for one app but globally across all of state government, procurement policy MUST favor solutions with open, standard interfaces. This practice lowers the cost of maintaining interoperability, and it also minimizes the number of different skill sets you need in order to maintain all that different software. So for each application domain, it makes sense to favor one solution over a multitude of solutions. This means that case-by-case competitive procurement without reference to standards doesn't work. The Massachusetts state government has mandated some of those standards. One is excluding proprietary interfaces.
CCAGW's rhetoric uses all the standard free-market buzzwords. But competitive procurement of pieces that, at the end of the day, don't fit together will not save the taxpayer any money. It's far more likely it will lead to more of the costly system-integration fiascos that have plagued government IT for the past several decades, not to mention security lapses and potential loss of critical data.
Based on this, I'm inclined to be cynical and assume that CCAGW are one of the many pseudo-grassroots groups who make their living by being mouthpieces for commercial interests, in this case those whose snouts have been forced out of the trough. Or perhaps they really have such poor access to engineering expertise that they believe that local optimization with inappropriate constraints will inevitably lead to global optimization. That beancounter's fallacy may still get an audience in Washington, but not many other places.
Meanwhile I'm sure CCAGW will also be as outspoken about the open-ended sole-source contracts recently let out by the Feds to Halliburton and Bechtel for Iraqi reconstruction. Or is it their view that such practices are only anti-competitive and socialistic when they are less flagrant and serve the public interest?
Note that I think it may have been a tactical error to have adopted an "OSS-only" procurement policy, since it opens you up to the kind of sniping we've seen here (however weak its technical or fiscal rationale). But a policy limiting the diversity of solutions and requiring compliance with open standards will probably lead to the same results, since OSS has had a better track record in this regard than proprietary software.
Get your teeth into a small slice: the cake of liberty
Well, the war is not over between open source and CCAGW. Here are some quotes from the CCAGW Minister of Information's response to your slashdot posts:
"We are not afraid of the slashdot. Tom Schatz has condemned them. They are stupid. They are stupid" (dramatic pause) "and they are condemned."
"The open source community is all about lies! All they tell is lies, lies and more lies!"
"Let the open source infidels bask in their illusion"
"I triple guarantee you, there are no apache servers on our web site."
"They think we are retarded - they are retarded."
"Don't believe anything! We will chase the rascals back to Finland!"
"Be assured. Closed-source is safe, protected"
"Yes, the open source has advanced further. This will only make it easier for us to defeat them"
...small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri...
The big difference between Windows and OSS is that OSS, by design, can not be turned into a monopoly. There will be big companies and small companies offering OSS solutions, but none of them will capture most of the market; it's as simple as this: if the OSS market is big enough and a company is starting to dominate it - and to generate big proffits - the low entry cost will allow any other company to start directly competing. And we know what competition means forto customers: lower prices, listening to what the customers want ... And we know of other beneffits inherent to OSS: no vendor lock-in (secret formats, ...) The only questionable issue is that of innovation, but we are seeing each day that innovation is possible in the OSS world: some will even say that certain technologies are moving faster in the Open Source world that in the propietary world.
...) to try to avoid people adopting an open standard which more clearly embodies the principles behind any open society.
Look at the irony: MS, carrying the flag of capitalism and american ideals, is forced by its very structure to use communist tactics (secretism, propaganda,
I am not american, but I'll tell what I see: not only because of the issues related to SW, but because of the general political climate, the USA are on the brink of taking an important decission: you have the choice now of keeping an open society, or you could turn your contry into the next soviet union. The choice is yours.
Though I don't think the government should require GPL, I want to say that I think Microsoft could do quite well even if they GPL'd their software. They can still contract with OEM's to install Windows and customize it and do a contract that is based on the number of units sold, like they do now. Any competitor selling "bob's customized Windows" would have a hard to impossible time competing with that. Also, more seriously, Microsoft could include some closed-source stuff like WMP or something that you are not allowed to run on non-Microsoft Windows.
Personally I feel a government mandate for open *data* standards would be best. If Microsoft writes a clever word processing algorithm, they should be able to profit from that and governments should pay Microsoft for the right to use it. However they currently don't do that, they can write crap because they rely on the lock-in of their closed formats.
especially to communist countries interestingly enough.
I do believe that this sort of action is called Standardizing, Obviously it would be a bigger cost to have multiple operating systems to mantain. So to this effect could we say that any company that standardises their platform is a communist enterprise? if so, I do believe 95% of all companies could be blamed for this same bad.
Some government agencies have chosen windows, other Unix, these chose Linux.
But the real point that Mr. Schatz is making is that Linux was the worse option. Pointing out that the the price of adquisition is the lowest of factor in TCO. To that effect, the points Mr. Schatz made:
"Maintenance, training and support are far more expensive with open source than proprietary software."
I would like to know where he got his facts from, and recommend he read Other information, maybe a comparison between TCO between NT and linux using enterprise software.
Because the proposed regulation qualifies the goods the government will purchase, not the vendor from whom government will purchase. If the Navy decides to buy a zillion gallons of gray paint, and Acme Corp only makes purple paint, Acme does not have a legitimate grievance. The Army mandates that all wooden products they purchase, if made from certain kinds of trees, must be completely free of bark. Again, this doesn't "exclude" any particular vendor, because they can just comply with the regulation. They can bid on the article requested, or not bid at all.
This is a step towards making government software purchases as fair, transparent and accessible as most government purchases.
Let's examine with:
They explain why Linux is a 'monopoly,'
To quote the article "Massachusetts
Definition of monopoly
I think that "requiring all IT expenditure to be only open-source/Linux formats" satisfies "Something that is exclusively possessed or controlled".
Don't get me wrong, I actually think that goverments switching too open source is a good thing, it encourages competition and alternative ways of solving problems (not to mention all the other reasons to switch).
But I definitely agree with Tom Schatz when he says "Like all procurement decisions, the best policy on the use of software is to place all products on equal footing." by forcing every department to choose only open source/linux software is doing the exact same thing as only allowing proprietary software (be it Apple/Microsoft/whoever based). It is an unfair software practice.
I'd rather the software was chosen on it's own merits rather than because it happens to conform to an arbitary format.
It's in that place where I put that thing that time
A.) OBIVIOUSLY, you're a homophobe. Not that I for one particularly care what you believe, but the fact that you want to force *your* opinion on what is "right and wrong" down someone else's throat when it comes to who you can/can't marry annoys me. To put it bluntly, are they fucking you in the ass nightly? No? Then please kindly STFU. B.) "These guys are shills bought and paid for by companies like Microsoft, and I for one am sick and tired of these faggots taking the message of "small government is better" and twisting it by pushing the agendas of big business." --Question : when did the question of sexual orientation come into the fact that anyone is "taking the message of small government is better..." ? Again, obiviously a homophobe. You wouldn't happen to be Catholic would you? Maybe the priest got a lil' too friendly? In any case, your idiocy is showing. Normally I wouldn't respond to such blatant trolling, but this time...*sighs* my fingers ran away with me.
While the initial open source software may be "free," most studies conclude that acquisition costs represent only 5 to 10 percent of total cost of ownership."
Okay, so "free" is 5 to 10 percent of what? :)
Nowhere does Massachusetts say "Linux". They say "Open Source". That covers a heck of a lot more ground than Linux. Presently, it may even cover OpenServer and UnixWare. (-: Covering, IMESHO, is the best possible thing to do with them short of outright destruction. As operating systems, they out-suck my Barracuda pool cleaner. :-)
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Here's the email I just wrote and sent:
To whom it may concern:
I recently read this article (http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=news _NewsRelease_09302003b) describing the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste and its position with regard to Free Software. I am concerned because it doesn't appear that this position has been adopted with much research into the subject.
For example,
The costs of maintaining an IT infrastructure include:
1. Procurement
2. Deployment
3. Continuing Support
4. Data protection (security)
5. Keeping software up-to-date and patched
6. Data recovery costs (especially in the case of virus infestations)
There are myriad costs associated with having and using an IT infrastructure. The most common non-Free operating system (Microsoft Windows) stands above most others in costs associated as follows:
1. Procurement (although you can get it heavily discounted, for a state government the costs are still very high)
2. Deployment (Deploying Windows XP requires a phone call to Microsoft for each and every machine installed. While the call may be toll-free, it costs a great deal of administration time to do it for every machine)
3. Upgrade costs (no upgrade is ever free with Microsoft)
4. Data protection (Windows of all flavors has the current worst track record for data protection. New exploits are literally being found every week)
5. Data recovery costs (due to frequent exploits, it becomes necessary to frequently rebuild machines and recover data)
6. Upgrade cycle (having to keep upgrading your software to become compatible with file formats that intentionally don't work with older versions of the software)
7. Personnel Costs (the ratio of administrators to users for Windows-based networks is about 20/1. Conversely, with GNU/Linux-based networks the ratio is much higher, more like 150/1. I know administrators that have even higher ratios than that, and are comfortable with it)
Furthermore, I saw that CAGW is opposed to Microsoft's DRM initiative, as told by this url:
http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename =get_i nv_Advocacy_Govt_Mandate_on_Tech_IssuePage
Of course, this begs the question, if you don't have access to the source code, how can you be sure there are no such measures built into your software? Microsoft has been convicted of using illegal anti-competitive measures to maintain their monopoly, measures which have frequently resulted in end-users' rights being taken away for the purpose of maintaining revenue streams. Do you really think that supporting such a company is going to reduce government waste?
A South American Congressman outlined all of the benefits of using Free Software over proprietary software in government in a very clear and concise fashion. I urge you to read this letter, posted on the internet as an open letter. I host a copy of it on my own website, and you can read it here:
http://benedict.servebeer.com/index.php?page=Fre eS oftwareInPeru
In this letter, he will address all of your concerns about what was described in your press release as the "socialistic nature" of Free Software.
I do not live in Massachussetts. Quite the contrary, I live in Bellevue, WA, approximately 10 miles away from One Redmond Way. In the Seattle Metropolitan Area, many schools have migrated to GNU/Linux-based networks when they found themselves being audited by Microsoft. Have you considered the costs of dealing with such software audits? That is money spent that cannot be recovered. There is no Return on Investment associated with software audits. There's just a big black hole that wastes the government's money and human resources just to satisfy the paranoia of a convicted monopolist.
Many competitive support vendors and software providers exist for Free Software, including RedHat Linux, Mandrake Linux, IBM, Sun, Hewlett-Packard, and Dell. With all of these com
Like what I said? You might like my music
...where [Removing]SoftwareChoice get off speaking for the whole software industry?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
The cow is nothing but a machine which makes grass fit for us people to eat? Really? (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
From: Leon Brooks
Organization: CyberKnights - modern tools, traditional dedication
To: Tom Schatz
Subject: What a waste!
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 17:39:44 +0800
User-Agent: KMail/1.5.3
Cc: CAGW Media, Peter Quinn, ESR, RMS
I speak for myself, not for the excellent organisations of which I am a member, and quote from this article:
Tom, you've got that last bit completely bass-ackwards. Linux is not always free to purchase, but it is very rare for the ROI to be other than a big improvement on MS-Windows - which to cut through a lot of bulldust is what it would be replacing in Massachusetts.
I charge half as much again as a typical MS-Windows technician for my Linux work, and I'm so busy I have to turn people away because the Linux-based results are so much better than any proprietary ones they've ever seen.
The ROI results for OpenOffice.org, the office suite that MA will be replacing MS-Office with, are even more astounding. Fetch a copy of OpenOffice.org 1.1 yourself and try it out. Proper crash recovery, no viruses, scads of extra features including PDF and Flash output, and getting even better while you wait.
Both of these products are examples of one of the strongest forms of Open Source, the GPL or "Free (as in speech) Software".
If it's a monopoly, you should be able to name the company or political force which is in control of it. Can you?
Not a hope! Open Source is not a brand, it is not a production line, it has no office, no secretariat, no board of directors, no legal department, no shares.
Open Source is people. Lots and lots of people. People combining their efforts and building on each other's work instead of hiding and WASTING it, or working to destroy each other as proprietary software makers so often do.
Massachusetts' actions will not form a monopoly, they will BREAK an existing, entrenched, CONVICTED monopoly. Microsoft and their lackeys claim to only want a level playing field, but on any modern playing field they are the 800lb gorilla and everyone else is a capuchin underfoot. Is that fair?
Should we stand back, as we have been doing, and let all of the corporate capuchins be crushed in the name of "free market"?
Go and have a look at who FUNDS those studies (and if not directly, then have a look at the organisation's biggest customer), and then have a little think about who the government WASTES most IT funding on.
Then go and read some real studies. Perhaps some which include the costs of fighting viruses and worms, perhaps some which count the cost of regular crashes, lost data and lost privacy. Not even the esoterica of trying to count the WASTE in re-invented wheels, a WASTE which CAGW seem particularly hostile to.
You've been duped, Tom Schatz, and the quicker you wake up to having been suckered, the less damage will be done - to you, and to those you oppose.
If you do not recant swiftly, you will be written off and backwatered as
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Second: The problem with "letting the market decide" between open and closed source is this: proprietary companies are the ones in the best position to bid on software. Cuz, like, they have salesmen and stuff.
This is a *huge* deal.
Keep in mind that the reason that salesmen and marketers exist -- a large chunk of the spending of most companies -- is to figure out how to subvert buying policies. If the government has a particular purchasing policy, how can it be avoided or exploited? "Wining and dining" is a phrase that we don't find disturbing, because it's so common -- and yet it itself is indicative of attempting to muck with the purchasing process.
Closed source and propriatary formats are wonderful for providing lock-in. Lock-in can be a massive hidden cost that can slip under the noses of purchasers.
May we never see th
I sent them this letter. You should send one too.
Dear Sirs,
I would simply like to help better inform you about the MA strategy to move toward "open standards".
First of all let me say that I make my living selling software in the traditional manner. I sell licenses to use my company's proprietary software. I have founded and sold one software company and am currently employed by another. At all times I have been heavily dependent on open source software, though I have very rarely made any open source software myself.
There are two points of clarification I would like to make about your press release criticizing the state of MA.
http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename= news_ NewsRelease_09302003b
First, your characterization of this policy as something the Soviet Union would attempt shows that you completely misunderstand what open source software is about and what the MA plan for adopting open source software is about.
Second, your focus on the costs of "free" software may be debated by reasonable people, but you completely miss the other meaning of the word "free" that the open source software community is built on. To paraphrase the open source community, you have focused on "free as in beer" but have completely missed the boat regarding "free as in speech".
Governments collect and manage data about people. The data they collect and manage is generally considered to be public data and should be freely accessible to all. As such, the format in which the data is held must be open, that is, in the public domain. Only in this way are all citizens able to freely access the data without paying a tax to the one convicted monopolist company in our country, namely, Microsoft. Open source software saves data in file formats that are also open. Proprietary software sometimes saves data in formats that are open, though most proprietary software vendors do not or only as a secondary and usually somewhat restricted option. The state of MA rightly points out that public data should not be stored in proprietary formats that require fees paid to private companies to access.
Similarly, the data governments collect about their citizens, their businesses, and their interactions with the state are used to affect people's lives. If this data had no affect on people's lives, then that would really be some waste that your agency should root out. If the data does affect people's lives and if the software the gov't uses affects the data, then again the state of MA rightly points out that that software should itself, be open to inspection by the public. Proprietary software is almost never open to inspection by anyone. How can the public be convinced that the software their government is using to store their personal data is secure? Is performing accurately? Only with open source software can this be done.
You compare MA proposal with policies of the former Soviet Union. As far as I know, the Soviet Union was not the poster child for making information and the processes of government systems openly accessible to all of its citizens. If this characterization was made because you feel the state of MA is forcing decisions to a single "monopoly" solution, you are again completely misinformed about open source software. There are typically more open source solutions for any software need than there are proprietary ones. In addition to Linux as an operating system, for example, there are also several different versions of the BSD operating system available as open source as well as BeOS and others. All of these are highly advanced solutions used in industry today. Beyond the operating system, there are choices in web and application servers. While Apache is the most commonly known open source web server, there are dozens of others including Tomcat, Zope, JBoss, Jetty most of which are full application servers. In my experience, there are generally as many or more open source choices than there are proprietary choices for any software category. The stat
At first impressions, 'limiting' the choices for govts to choose only open source solutions may sound monopolistic.
However the benefits of going open source is the freedom the govt departments will receive in terms of future use, and this itself is quite a valuable right.
> Would it then fall upon the government to contract somebody to write the code that would bring PostgreSQL up to par with their existing Oracle installs?
If the goverments of the country/world will only use open source, we, taxpayers will now benefit from our contribution$ of our goverments directly.
Imagine the m/billions currently spent on licensing now to be diverted to fund Open Source projects to maintain and increase features for govermment departments.
All software houses contracted by the govt will have to release their source leading to (hopefully) better and more full featured software. Everybody wins!
Govt gets good software for good money, software engineers get paid at market rate, common people get to use the new software for free, and this cycle of benefits repeats itself.
What is the use of giving our country's/state's money to a philanthropist, when we can clearly see where our money is going, and enjoy the direct benefits?
yk.
How easy do you want windows to be?????
/.ers skillbase. Server versions always do close to what i want them to do.
the teltubby interface on XP just screams out "USABILITY" sure, it requires some boxes (un)checked if you wanna do more "advanced" stuff with it, but thats what workstation builds are - for end users, who don't have your average
As it is now, more time is spent fighting windows, trying to make it do what people want it to do, than used actually getting the job done.
So buy another OS. Windows is a tool, just like a hammer, or a chisle, or a workbench. I dont buy a hammer then bitch coz i can't unscrew my wall units with it. then i go buy a screw driver.
MS do deserve a bit of a break. They get sued for putting too many "features" in with the OS, then get complaints coz the OS cant do everything.
I personally use XP/2k for my desktops coz users love the squidgy front end that makes it so fun (sure i admit it can be a bit of a donkey on some systems and requires high end machines to achieve results - but thats a whole different argument), and i run Suse Linux on my server coz i prefer its server implemntations (i only run file and web servers). This way i get the best of both worlds.. and if there is anything i cant achieve through both, then it prolly hasnt been done.
bah!*@%!
We all know that running an IT department with one main operating system reduces maintenance costs, training costs, can result in lower buying price for hardware (all the same) and a thousand small cost benefits resulting in a big IT saving.
Further, the secondary effect of unification of services can result, leading to lower costs in running a given service. For example if departments can exchange information on a person who moves from one area of the state to another through a shared database format, rather than by paper copy, time and cost benefits result for the tax payers.
So, given that the software in question is free (according to their article), their whole argument is flawed. Thats too polite. A flaw is usually a small inaccuracy in argument, their article is ...
(answers on a postcard)
WrocEng
(ps I live in a post communist country so their rhetoric seems even more ridiculous than their basic argument)
Only a nitpick, but the title of the article is "Mass. Taxpayers Hurt by Proposed Software Monopoly".
More importantly, a government department mandating the use of open source software does not mandate zero-competition any more than it does if it mandates the use of only bins with wheels instead of bins without wheels. They are not discriminating against companies, but just choosing to use the most appropriate tool for the job. Anyone is welcome to bid for the contracts to provide those tools. If Microsoft were to provide some open-source software, I'm sure it would be considered along with all the other open-source options.
What is being referred to here as Linux is not one monolithic piece of software. If it were, there would be no need for Red Hat, SuSE, Mandrake, etc. These companies are competitors in a marketplace. That marketplace is the market for open-source software, which is qualitatively different to closed source software. By choosing open-source rather than closed source, the government is choosing not a different company, but a different market from which to buy its software. This is a market just like any other, which Microsoft, or anyone else is free to join at any time. The government is supposed to buy the best tools for the job. If it feels open-source fits the bill, then to go against that and use Microsoft software would be "Government Waste" and the creation of a "state-imposed monopoly". Open source is not a a company, so all open-source != monopoly. On the other hand, all Microsoft OF COURSE FUCKING == MONOPOLY.
"The Milliard Gargantubrain? A mere abacus - mention it not."
...according to the charities review council.
http://www.crcmn.org/review/cagw.pdf
How do you , as a citizen, ensure transparency and accountability for software of which you don't have the source code. Voting software for example? Do you trust the goverment for that? Nope, I would not, I would like anybody to be able an audit the software used.
To be frank, goverments got away for far too long using closed source software. That kind of software has its place on society, but not in goverment where every single thing that is done shuld be fully accountable to anybody that wishes to see that things are done the right way.
Or at least I believe it should in democratic countries.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
This is not my sandwich.
They spend more than they take in. Check out their financials...
t s. gs?action_gsReport=1&npoId=251587
http://www.guidestar.org/controller/searchResul
Hmm, lets see, group was started by Pres. Reagan effort to identify government waste (perhaps due to the flack he took over his "VooDoo Economics" & "trickle-down" policies), hmm, group is affiliated with republican parties, hmm, republican's favor big-business, hmm, M$ is big business, hmm, M$ doesn't like penguin's, hmm, is there a connection here? ;-)
While the initial open source software may be "free," most studies conclude that acquisition costs represent only 5 to 10 percent of total cost of ownership. Maintenance, training and support are far more expensive with open source than proprietary software.
"Most studies conclude" indeed. Where are these studies? They didn't cite a single one. And do these same studies justify their remark on maintenance, training and support costs or did they pull that one out of their asses? The article does not specify.
10. Bill Gates
9. Melinda Gates
8. The Howard Stern Crank Callers Club
7. The Unsayers Clan
6. The McCarthy Renaissance Society
5. The Society to Prevent Government from Buying anything that isn't made by Microsoft Club
4. The "In Soviet Russia, Linux is a Monopoly" Society.
3. The Altered States Club
2. The Society for Experimental Drug Use
1. The Waste is a Good Thing Society
For those of you unfamiliar with the world of special interest groups, read "Thank You for Smoking" by Christopher Buckley. Special interest groups like the one challenging open source have a very "unique" intrepetation of the truth and literally will say anything to advocate their point. The also smear and attack their opponents on a very personal level.
-- $G
It is critical that taxpayers receive the best quality programs at the least cost
Come again?
Best quality.. hundreds of thousands of people working towards a similar goal of better code vs. hundreds of guys patching old code to make it look better?
Least cost.. DO I NEED to go there?
Linux: Helping nerds look smarter since the late 90s.
They claim that proprietary software vendors will be shut out.
Patently false, if you'll pardon the expression. Software will still need to be written, after all, and governments generally need a much faster timetable for initial releases than Open-Source has.
If anything, this will end up being more profitable for proprietary software vendors, who can leverage the Open-Source requirement to charge the state for an IP-rights release. The state has to pay if they want their software in a timely manner, and the results could easily cost as much or more than proprietary licenses do today.
But hey, that's anti-OSS FUD for you. They tend to claim that you can't make money with Open-Source. It's true that the traditional business model we see for most consumer software today doesn't work well in an Open-Source market. Contract work, however, continues to work just fine, and in an area where IP rights are treated as a valuable commodity (as they are in the US), contract work can become even more lucrative.
the whole point of the "bidding" process is to see who gives the lowest bid. They still have the right to choose the best free software.
Now instead of competing in two arenas (best price vs. best technology), there is only one. The only one who should be making the choice is the ones who will implement it and manage it.
Linux: Helping nerds look smarter since the late 90s.
"Don't worry about people stealing an idea. If it's original, you will have to ram it down their throats." --Howard Aike
A bit misleading- John actually wrote the core engine, I wrote the gui wrapper for it. and yes virginia, I'm a whore(karma or otherwise):)
3 7215.shtml ?tid=103&tid=126&tid=163&tid=98&tid=99
I D=6&MenuI D=7
-----
This message is in direct response to this article:
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/03/10/01/22
Linux is the absolute opposite of waste in government. As I type this,
I sit at a Linux workstation, sending mail through a Linux mailserver.
I have an email client, a web browser, instant messenger and an office
suite. Not only that, but about $600 worth of educational software I
plan to share with my kids when I have have some.
Cost of this software: $0. Not because of piracy- because the creators
of the software choose to give it away for free. I should know- I am
also an open source developer.
Each Massachusetts computer using linux is $200+ that is not shipped out
of state to a large corporate sinkhole. This money can be spent on
important things like rebuilding roads and schools. If however you feel
that the schools are over fiananced, I'm afraid there is little I can do
to convice you otherwise.
Shame on you for speaking on a subject you know little of. Perhaps you
should check news.google.com. Count the positive number of Linux
articles in comparison to negative articles on other operating systems.
Keep a tally over the course of a month.
As I mentioned before, I am an open source developer. I, along with my
friend john, wrote the program GatGui.
http://morgajel.com/index.php?GPMID=5&PM
GatGui is a cancer research tool. It helps identify which genes are
most likely to be involved with certain forms of cancer. John and I
give this program away for free. Why? Because damnit, PEOPLE NEED IT.
It's not about the money, it's about helping people. Before you deride
my effort, I should mention that GAT (previous version of GatGui) is
being used by the Van Andel Institute for cancer research.
I suppose my program is evil and wasteful now, as well, huh?
My point is that you shouldn't complain about a product BEFORE you know
what it is about. Do not let corporate sponsors, or those that are
sponsored by them, make your decisions. If someone is Microsoft
Certified, chances are they will support the decision to stay with
Microsoft. Don't let ignorance blind you.
I apologize for typos- I was up late trying to find the cure for cancer.
-Jesse Morgan
Looking for Book Reviews? Check out Literary Escapism.
It's obvious to anyone in IT that Microsoft and comercial software in general has been beat by free software. BSD rules web serving uptimes, GNU/Linux rules for applications and ease of use. Microsoft has nothing left to offer but compatibility with it's second rate Office file formats. All of their toys, such as active directory and all that, have superior free software alternatives. Their attempts at DRM are both futile and unwanted. The standard unix/permissions combined with kerbos and client/server applications provide much better control of sensitive documents. Microsoft has so many code quality and architectural issues to deal with that they may never escape the script kiddie attack that makes their systems insecure, expensive and a public menace.
Governemt specifications for their own software purchasing don't amount to subsidies or a "monopoly". Public documents are permanent works and need to work forever. The only way to make sure this happens is to keep their formats public and the methods used to manipulate them free. Microsoft and others are welcome to compete this way, that they chose to do as they do is their own loss.
Did you write your letter to them? I did.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Microsoft isn't prevented from bidding -- they are free to submit an open-source proposal, just like anyone else.
Of course there's restrictions on the software made before the bidding starts. That's perfectly normal. If there were no restrictions, Sony could submit Everquest, and Hormel could be pushing hot dogs as their proposed solution.
As it is, there's numerous restrictions, of which "being open source" is just one of them. Other restrictions almost certainly includes clauses specifying that it must not contain code provided by a foreign government, and must not promote a specific political or religious view. That it must be open source is just another restriction and safeguard that the code will fit the purpose, now and in the future.
Regards,
--
*Art
A product may be technically the best for a certain technical task.
But a goverment has many other considerations to take into account, specially in a democratic society.
Is closed source software auditable by the goverment? Nope, normally not. And if it is you are bound by multiple NDAs that make it a minefiled to disclose possible problems.
Does closed software provide indeminity against wongful use, harming third parties, etc? Nope. Read the EULAs.
Is closed software auditbale by independent third parties? Nope.
The technical merits of some technology should not be the only considerations, and in the case of a democratic goverment, may not even be the most important one.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
It is not a religious issue, it is an ideological, political one.
To people that have few or no convictions, these seem similar but they arent.
Religious convictions are born out of inmmovable teachings.
Political and ideological convictions normally are born out of careful thought about how one wants the world to be.
To insinuate that people in favour of free software are somehow comparable to religious fundamentalists is pretty disingenious and a horse that has been beaten beyond recognition and that does not give the person saying it any more credibility.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
To save money is not the only responsibility of a goverment. A goverment should be accountable and auditable, if possible by any person or organization that wishes to do so.
Accountability, transparency and protection against forced obsolescence should have far greater priority than price for a democratic goverment.
Closed software was an stop gap measure to allow goverments to take advantage of IT, but now that there is software that fits better in a democratic society goverments should pause and think which technology is more in sync with the needs of institutions accountable to the people in general.
Price is and should not be the only, not even the most important, consideration when the goverments spend money in our behalf.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
The software you mention is accountable and transparent, ideally placed to allow citizens to keep an eye in how things are done.
The products you mention come to fill a need that was already there, there is no stopping private companies to offer products that adhere to open standards.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
TCO = (10 * 0) USD
TCO is FREE! Buy me some Linux and fire all the geeks!
This story belongs in the category, "It's funny. Laugh."
Maybe I had a deficient education or something, but where I come from, if 5-10% of something is zero...
Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.
Here is what i sent .. short but to the point:
...... i wish all posting email proggies would have spell check
Regarding Linux in Mass, I think your writer is mistaken about the cost ownership, and GPL software really is the only way small business can have any of the IT peice of th pie. Newer versions of linux are not the nightmare of old. Before you complain, try for yourself. Knoppix is a version that runs from CD ans installs nothing on your hardware. http://www.knoppix.org
GPL software is perfect for government because the results of tax expenditures are then available to those who paid for it
Thanks,
me
Ack
* Carthago Delenda Est *
Found this on their links page - one of only about 5 links...
Microsoft Corporation: Visit the Microsoft website to examine the future of cyber technology!
Theoretically, no, but in practice, yes. If they make a mandatory switch to linux, that effectively means Linus has executive control over every operating system used in Massachussets. I realize anyone can contribute, yadda yadda, but that's the reality of it.
A world where Linux dominates is a world where no-one dominates. Everyone is free to take software and use it, study it, and modify it in any way they like.
That means nothing to Massachussets as consumers. If no one IS doing that, then they're tied to the same old linux that may or may not be right for them. Your argument is one germane to the operating system "revolution" that we and like five people not on /. care about. Massachussets simply needs computers with the lowest possible TCO. To say that *can't* be closed source is ridiculous. Massachussets doesn't care about our agenda, and they shouldn't.
The only restriction is on redistribution, and if you don't like the terms, hey, use something else.
What, like Windows? Not if there's a law against it...
Ultimately, I think the time when linux wins is when individual departments CHOOSE it, not when they're FORCED to do so. This is where the CAGW's comment about the Soviets links in - if they thought their revolution was so great, why didn't they open up elections to prove it?
Before the flames fly, I'm writing this post in Mozilla running on KDE on top of Slackware.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Actually, the barriers to entry are quite low - Microsoft could publish their source tomorrow and be immediately included in the list of qualified vendors. However, they choose not to release the source - and that does not a monopoly make.
Everyone will start to cheer when you put on your sailin' shoes.
Looks about right, not that the blind fools here worry about that in their haste to bash anything closed source. CAGW needs the public's support, not the linux geek communities derision.
Here is a link to their hosting company (Convio Inc), listing the technology partners, used to create and manage the site, ironic isn't it? ;-)
r t_technology
http://www.convio.com/site/PageServer?pagename=pa
mlongval@videotron.ca
Hmmm... follow me here.
You get the code for 'free' so everyone is happy. That is until the IT department finds that the technologists needed to support it are 15 to 20% more expensive and harder to find, support is non-existant and when available at equally or even far higher expense, the hardware supported is far more limited, forcing them to use either ancient and over priced equipment or junk, the network 50 to 100 times less secure since all of the source is easily found and people can figure out exactly how to get in with ease (something all linux geeks simply blank over in their haste to support their hobby OS), compatiblity with the remaining governments and official organs difficult to impossible out of the box which requires extensive coding changes and support, training of existing staff from the top down how to use the new junk that doesnt work and no one can link into directly, etc.
My company went open source about a year ago. To date we have spent 12 times our yearly IT budget on training, problem solving, recoding for compatiblity with our partners and competitors, and about a 200% hike in our departments annual wage buget, not too mention the hardware headaches which are extensive and expensive (almost every new server in our farm had to be retro-fitted with older hardware to be compatible) and the extensive overtime costs for outside consultants and inside staff to try and solve all the numerous problems Open Source junk introduced to our company of over 1000 employees and nearly 200 PCs and 50 servers. Throw in the the lost performance of nearly every employee due to training and the inherient instability of opensource solutions that come part and parcel with odd interfaces and awkward standards and you end up with a near disaster. We have eaten all of our cash reserves in doing this and several of the responsible IT administrators are already out on their keesters.
And the CAGW is clearly right here. Open source is less secure and only appears secure through lack of deployment and obscurity. Cost of ownership is more than a little understated by the CAGW, and as always the geek community overlooks the incompatibility, tranining needs, steep deployment costs in a already existing and incompatible hardware/network environment, and the simple fact that opening your source leads to the mess that every single OpenSource piece of code junk out there has become.
stories like this really cook my noodle. they didn't even bother doing any real research on this issue.
frankly it sounds like MS had a play in this. we all know they don't understand "ethics" so it's perfectly possible. but what really gets me is the total lack of understanding of what open source is. Commercial companies can still develop class A open-source software and sell it for $$. they make it out to look like everything they're going to use is written by some 16 year old geek.
and they don't even begin to think about how much more secure the system will be after the switch over, hence SAVING probably millions of dollars from not getting every virus that comes down the pipe because they're running windows, or the mad patching at 3am on a friday because the next huge hole in MS came out.
Frankly the article was totally blatently one sided and pro microsoft. This type of ignorance should not be allowed on the internet!
The blind and unthinking fervor with which many people pursue this belief makes it seem much more like religion. For some people who favor free software, it's ideological. But for MANY others -- including a lot of posters on this board -- it's religion. They simply believe because they've been told it's good, but they have no idea why -- beyond the fact that they like the idea of "something for nothing."
It's a metaphor that seems very apt to me. Sorry if you don't like it, but I stand by it.
Anyone heard of MIT?
Choose yer poison: Prophets or Profits
"Massachusetts is proving itself the most technologically inept state in the nation"
There is trolling for press coverage, which is fine (it is a "press" release after all), and then there is completely undermining your statement.
This is not the greatest sig in the world, this is just a tribute.
> There's hypocrisy in berating Microsoft for its monopoly based on closed source and yet a supporting state-mandated monopoly of Linux.
Incorrect, and irrelevant. Firstly, Massachusetts didn't mandate "open source", they mandated "open standards", which is only functionally the same because Microsoft chooses to maintain complete control over their own data formats. If they wished to produce MS Word-Open, which supported open standards of data storage, they'd be free to join in the bids for Massachusetts government agencies. Secondly, your description of a "monopoly of Linux" is nonsensical, just as declaring a "monopoly of English". Anyone, including Microsoft and Apple, can publish a Linux distro, and no one company or body can control what happens in all Linux distros. Therefore, there is no restriction to entry, and no centralized control, so using the term "monopoly" is meaningless.
Since the two situations (single vendor, control of a proprietary data format set versus multivendor, no control of data format sets) are not comparable, disparaging one while advocating the other is not hypocritical.
Virg
You are wrong:
Copyright is not a government-mandated monopoly. A copyright holder can do anything he wants with his work, including giving everyone in the world the right to make and distribute as many copies as they want. Copyright protects an author's rights in his work, but it certainly doesn't constrain how an authro transfers those rights to others. The fact that very few do that is a commentary on people's need to earn a lving, not a proof that copyright equals monopoly.
In other words, Linux could be conventionally copywritten and still be just as open as it is now.
And, modern copyright law came into existence as a response to predatory publishers who were copying and selling books without compensating the authors in any fashion or, in fact, acquiring the author's consent.
And, finally, I didn't call Linux a monopoly. (Try reading it again.) I questioned the hypocrisy of supporting open software and then cheering what appears to be one state's decision to offer a monopoly to Linux.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
For what it's worth, here is the reply I sent to this organization: To whom it may concern: As a systems administrator and a citizen of Massachusetts, I was delighted to read the news in the article on your website titled "Mass Taxpayers Hurt by Proposed Software Monopoly". I think that it is wonderful that my state is moving into the 21st century and making such well-informed procurement decisions. If this plan is implemented, the state could save millions on their IT procurement budget, freeing up these funds for development, maintenance, training, and support that will increase the security and reliablity of our IT infrastructure. I don't understand your insistance that this creates a monopoly or hurts the position of technology vendors in our great state. Having a standardized platform for all state computers is an obvious decision that many large organizations make. Interoperability and standardization are important goals for the IT managers of such organizations. The idea that "Proprietary vendors will be effectively barred from competing for state contracts, limiting competition and raising costs." is ludicrous. Any vendor who wishes to provide software that runs on the chosen platform is welcome to compete for the states business, and most vendors of enterprise level software solutions do provide software that runs on open-source UNIX derivitives. Perhaps your understanding of systems administration and IT procurment issues is not as rigorous as other areas of expertise in your organization. Please do not lobby your position to Governor Romney on my behalf. - Mark Scarbrough
...If Linux or Open Source were a single vendor.
Then CAGW has a point. But that isn't the case, limiting future software acquisitions to Open Source does not reduce the playing field to a single vendor. The important thing about this, it does not reduce any segment of your purchasing to a single vendor. Using appplications for M$ (only) may give you a broad depth of application vendors, but inly one OS vendor. Even if you look soley at Linux as the OS, you still have a plethora of vendors to obtain your OS from.
Nevermind the costs involved should you need massive revisions to your closed source product...
Umm, Reverend, yer a preachin to the choir there son...
"Talk minus action equals nothing" - Joey Shithead, D.O.A.
"Talk minus action equals
I take issue with CCAGW's assumption, and the same assumuption by many posters here on /. that a moving towards a monopoly situation is a socialist act. It is not: we are in the current MS monopoly situation almost entirely without state intervention (many might say *because* of no state intervention). Monopolies in many cases are the result of very capitalist environments.
That being said, what the CCAGW is saying in this case holds merit. The best situation for both consumers of technology and the industry is fair competition - and believe it or not, the open source model is not the only game in town. Software that takes a great deal of start-up research or investment (not just the work of many programmers) is not well suited for open source development. For maximum benefit, it is necessary to have a market where both open source and traditional proprietary software companies can offer what each does best, and let consumers have choice. It is also in no-ones best interest to have a backlash against open source adoption in response to legislation such as this.
I think a moderately regulated and openly competitive industry is best, somewhere between the current poorly-regulated free-for-all and the proposed Massachusetts legislation.
I thought this was an incredibly biased post, and it's completely unfair to what the CCAGW actally said. The quote in the post,
"They explain why Linux is a 'monopoly,' how this policy is 'socialist' and why 'The old Soviet Union could not have done this any better.'"
Is entirely false. They don't claim Linux is a monopoly. They say the state government telling every government institution that they have to buy Linux and can't even consider other platforms is granting a state-sponsored monopoly. Well it is!
Is everyone on Slashdot actually in favor of governments mandating that anyone, even branches of government, use only one platform? I think that's terrible. If the government's hiring graphic artists to work on some event, they can't even consider getting them Macs or SGI's? I'd revolt if they made me do graphic arts work on Linux all day.
Even for the things Linux is best at, you think that if the government wants to set up servers to do hosting, they shouldn't be allowed to solicit bids from anyone who will provide anything other than a Linux solution? You think Linux can't stand up on its own merits, and needs to be mandated? I think the Government should be allowed to evaluate every option that private individuals and businesses are allowed to evaluate, and choose whichever one they believe best fits their needs. While I'm strongly pro-Linux, I'm strongly anti government-mandated anything. Choose the best system for your situation.
-Phat Tony.
Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
While I (and the majority of the open source community) agree that OSS (Open source software) should not be rammed into place, yet I am saddened that CCAGW has missed the mark with your press release.
If the government simply mandated the requirement of Open standards for the default file type of application purchased, there would suddenly be competition in the market place besides the open source community (Yes, it is ironic that there is more competition there than in the commercial world.) This would result in huge savigs in the total cost of government. There is also a reason to use open standard documents in government as proprietary documents require the citizen to use one particular vendors software to interact with a public document.
Server market for Linux has increased because it simply works better. It is a fact that COLO's(CO LOcated servers ISPs) charge more to let someone locate a Microsoft Server than Linux server because on the greatly increased amount of visits that the owners of Microsoft servers have to make than those running Linux.
The Linux desktop is still behind, but that should not be confused with the TCO of servers, where Linux servers are much cheaper.
There is one more effect in Open Source software that you seem unaware of. Commercial software (which we sell), is released when enough of the bugs are out of it to be sell-able. Major bugs are sometime fixed after the release, but minor bugs often never get fixed. This is quite different in OOS where someone will get annoyed enough with a minor bug to go dig into the source code and fix it - sending the fix to the author who then puts it in release.
The result of these bugs getting fixed means that the FINAL software is better than the commercial product, but sometimes develops slower. To not take advantage of this better software is wasteful.
If you have further questions please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Karl Schmidt
I have read a number of posts on this topic, and it seems to me that a lot (certainly not all) people are missing the point. The CCAGW is saying that by mandating a certain solution (in this case Open Source) the Mass government is reducing the opportunity for competition and therefore increasing the potential for solutions that are sub optimal (both in price and performance) to be choosen. Surely, for true competition (and for Linux to genuinely come to the forefront) it should be treated on the same basis as (for example) Windows. If it is truly the better option (on some form of price/performance comparison) then it will get choosen. IMHO Mass. should have stated that they had a preference to open source platforms, but would not bar other platforms from competition. This becomes a strategic statement, not a proscriptive statement. Regards JoAnywhere
Massachusetts Open Source is a Smart Decision
Dear Editors,
I'm writing in response to your recent article "Mass. Taxpayers Hurt by Proposed Software Monopoly".
I must disagree strongly with the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste's (CCAGW) characterization of Mr. Quinn's plan to move to all open source operating systems as a "boondoggle". Let's look at your points one by one.
1. You state: "Proprietary vendors will be effectively barred from competing for state contracts, limiting competition and raising costs."
"Proprietary vendors" have many options that will allow them to bid for state contracts. One way is offer their products as open source, and make money off support contracts. Another is to win bids for contracts to write open source software needed by the state.
2. You argue: "People mistakenly refer to Linux as 'free' software because it can be freely altered and distributed. Yet while the software itself is free, the cost to maintain and upgrade it can become very expensive."
"Free" refers correctly to freedom. The freedom to alter and re-distribute software insures against forced obsolescence when a company drops support for a product or goes out of business. It can be expensive to maintain and upgrade software, but more so with proprietary software. Not only do you need to pay for the man-hours to do the work, but you have to pay the upgrade fees. And why was the upgrade necessary? Often because the software vendor decided to stop supporting the prior version, not because you need the new features. This cannot happen with open source software, because you always have the option to hire an engineer to support it for you.
3. You say: "Like all procurement decisions, the best policy on the use of software is to place all products on equal footing. It is critical that taxpayers receive the best quality programs at the least cost."
All software is on equal footing. It must meet the requirements. One of those requirements is that the software must be open source. How is this different than any other requirements found in government contracts? You know, the ones that say the vendor must have at least $10 million in annual revenue, or not be foreign owned, or have been in business for at least 10 years, etc.., etc... All these requirements limit competition, and they all do so to help ensure that the vendor can actually fulfill the contract or to protect other key public interests.
4. You claim: "It is ironic that Massachusetts , as the only state remaining in the lawsuit accusing Microsoft of antitrust violations, is creating its own state-imposed monopoly on software. Under the state's proposed "Freeware Initiative," there would be no exceptions to the rule permitting only open source/Linux software. The old Soviet Union could not have done this any better"
monopoly n. pl. monopolies
Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling
a commodity or service
(source: American Heritage(R) Dictionary of the English Language)
So where is the monopoly? Are you defining the monopolist group to be "everyone"? The GNU Public License makes it quite clear that everyone has complete freedom to alter and redistribute the software as long as they give those same rights to others. That's about as far from a monopoly as you can get.
The Soviet Union reference is absurd. The Soviet Union was a centrally controlled economy where the government planners dictated exactly what was to be produced and where. It also restricted the availability of information to the populace. Massachusetts is only dictating what they will buy, not what must be produced. Free market economics gives every consumer the freedom to decide what to buy and under what terms. By only using open source software, Massachusetts is also promoting availability of information.
5. You continue: "While the initial open source software may be "free," most studies conclude that acquisition costs represent
Using software whose data format lock you into a single vendor may be more profitable on a short-term, but is dangerous on a long term. The vendor may change price or license in the future, or may not choose to evolve the software at a path that is different from your need.
All Mass. wants to require is to maintain the ability to switch vendor. Calling such a requirement for "setting up a monopoly" requires either gross ignorance or deliberate lies. Requiring all data to be in formats supported by multiple, independent vendors will keep the market open for others to provide better offers than your current vendor, and will thus on the long term be cheaper than the lock-in solution.
This is actually much the same mechanism that make running a market economy cheaper in the long run than a planned economy, so CAGW are the one alligned with old soviet ideology.
Puting yourself at the mercy of a single compagny is very much like the old soviet, where you also were at the mercy of a single company (the state). That is the ideology of it.
Keeping your options open is not ideology, that is just common sense.
Copyright by definition is a government granted monopoly on the right to copy somthing. But, the right to controll what people copy is not a right inherent or otherwise any more than the right to grow trees in your yard or pee in your car. Perhaps I don't have some kind of incentive without these "rights" either, but that is irrelavent.
... tough. Just because a bunch of lords think somethings a right, and call it a right does not make it so.
Copyrights do not "protect" you against anything. No matter what I copy, you are free to do whatever the heck you want with your copy. You are not coerced, not imposed on. You might loose market share, but so what - that is not a right either. Perhaps ford has no incentive to make cars unless they can lock out the japs
It is anti-competitive to get yourself in a position where you in practise is not able to switch vendor.
As all anti-compettive praxises, while it may have some short-time benefits, it is also expensive at the long time. After you have accepted the one-vendor solution, the vendor will in the future negotiations only be bounded by the price of switching vendor. If you data is in a proprietary format, or you have spend a lot of money educating your employees to use proprietary tools, that price will be very high.
If you use a solution that allows multiple vendors to bid in for future maintenance (either because it is based on free software or open standards), the vendor will be forced to keep his demands below those of the competition, as the switch-cost is minimal.
Here's what I just emailed to them, cc'ing the IT directors of Mass. and Minnesota:
Subject: Linux is not a 'boondoggle'
Dear sirs,
I would like to respond to your press release 'Mass. Taxpayers Hurt by Proposed Software Monopoly'. In that press release, you claim that by requiring open source techonolgies, such as Linux, costs to taxpayers will increase. I strongly disagree with that assessment, and I wish that my own state, Minnesota, would take similarly bold cost-saving measures.
Linux and open source are not monopolies-- there are many companies that compete to sell Linux products and support-- and they are by no means boondoggles. Linux and open source software are used prominantly by such high-tech companies as Yahoo, Amazon, Google, and Apple Computer. Even Microsoft has been known to use open source software (including BSD Unix, a Windows and Linux competitor) in its operations.
I work for a five-person high-tech service-oriented company as the guy who writes our support software. We're a start up with very little money, so every employee constantly looks at ways to cut costs and reduce waste. All of our furniture, plus our printer and copier, was purchased used, at eBay, garage sales, or local auctions. If government can cut waste by emulating the private sector, they should follow our lead!
We have one desktop or laptop computer for each employee: the CEO has his personal Apple Powerbook, two employees have low-end Windows laptops, and the two techies (myself and the system administrator) have the cheapest desktops we could find, with Windows ripped out and replaced with Linux.
Our server room houses five computers, three of which run Linux. We plan to get rid of one of our non-Linux machines and put its functionality on one of the Linux machines. We also own two iMacs we use for trade shows. (These were chosen because they are eye-catching; the price of both computers was less than the cost of running a booth at one trade show.)
For us, Linux has been a big win in keeping costs down. In the server room, we can do more on cheaper harware. On desktops, nearly all of our support problems have been related to viruses, worms, spyware, and trojan horses on our two Windows computers. We can keep most of it out with anti-virus software, but not all. We've considered switching the Windows laptops over to a commercial version of Linux (ApplixWare), but we're holding off for now because the change would be as disruptive as upgrading to a new version of Windows.
Granted, we're not a typical organization. Three-fifths of the company is tech savvy enough to diagnose their own desktop problems, and support costs are built into salaries we can't avoid. However, we know exactly how much time we're spending on desktop support, and we know exactly how much money we're spending on software. Linux and open source software has three major advantages: up-front cost, ease of support, and predictability of upgrade costs. It's a big win on all three.
I've studied the issues and have come to the conclusion that open source software is no more expensive to support, and often far cheaper. An entry-level Linux administrator often demands a higher wage than an entry-level Windows administrator, but employers demand more from the Linux administrator. Linux desktops can be administered remotely more effectively than Windows, so a Linux administrator can take care of an entire company's computers without leaving his/her office. Thus, far more machines can be serviced per administrator. Also, Linux machines can be locked down far more effectively, so damage from employees customizing their computers (either deliberately or due to email viruses, if they were to exist on Linux) can be minimized.
As you're aware, governments sometimes make really dumb decisions. To minimize this, they often make policy decisions to limit decision-making. These aren't always perfect. For example, when times are tough they might implement a hiring free
... and given the list of right-wing luminaries they quote, they probably are part of the rnc...
REPORT ALL OBSCENE MESSAGES TO YOUR POTSMASTER
having never been a Republican, I don't know for sure. However, when it comes to limiting choice and wasting working man's money I leave that up to the DNC.
However, I have seen a whole slew of idiotic decisions from government folks who would SAY they were all for using Linux and friends if that was the best tool, yet after doing minimal or just plain old incompetent research they end up with a MS product. Then later they scratch their heads and say, "Well, we paid all this money! What do you mean it doesn't do what it said it would and we have to also take down other machines due to security violations?"
The real issue is of course that government puts incompetent used-car-salesmen into decision making positions. These generally know far less than the average power-user and often the regular new users as well. They however veto even the most arduent and plentiful requests for/against functionality or platforms by users, powerusers, and admins.
They embody all that is unholy and inept about the PHB(s) in Dilbert yet without all the humour (actually I laugh quite frequently know that I am in another place).
I just want to hold them accountable for the choices, both due to initial investment and TCO later on given known trends within the organization (like moving towards certain functionality that would be limited to only one product if within a windows networking scheme). Make them show their research and punish them heavily if they do inadequate research and vendor querying. Sometimes Windows is indeed the best solution, usually because of a desktop based system already tied in to multiple apps and suites that are windows only. Yet this never stopped in the past, the moronic "total changeover" from existing Sun, HP and SGI based systems over to NT ones that stemmed from one PHB's requirement to use SQL-Server. (they of course can never cough up actual empirical data to back up any claims of performance, and when pressed fall back on circular arguments of required systems architecture... namely, Tool X requires ASP, ASP requires IIS, IIS with this tool requires SQL-Server, these all require Windows, Windows boxes are pretty, users get confused with anything non-windows (that consequently is through a browswer's web interface, hmmm) and Administrators only know Windows when it is clear that the admins do NOT know jack-shit about networking, security, web applications, single sign on, etc... they only know some MS buzz words with their MSCA or whatever. Again, the problem is idiocy on the part of the government... no policy will solve that, but perhaps demanding proof of actual research and firing those who do not do adequate amounts of good research will help out.
I don't agree simply on the RMS mantra of information wanting to be free, unless there's a practical reason (which there may be in some cases). You have to realize, very few people actually care about such things. Quite frankly, 99% of all government agencies (especially at the state level) don't even want to modify software. So openness doesn't directly give them anything.
If the cheapest "solution" to a problem doesn't guarantee the ability to migrate data away from that platform, or locks the citizens of the state to purchasing software X in order to interact with the government, then TCO has to take the back seat to openness.
Oh, now, all that is a part of TCO as I define it. Kind of like managing those little damned CofA certificates is part of MS's TCO, either that or paying the BSA tax. You're right - if you need custom software, make sure it's open source or you're owned. As for people needing to interact with the government, how? Web pages? I've never interacted with the "government" outside of something like that, which is certainly an open standard. Additionally, like it or not, most people DO own MS for any number of crappy reasons, so therefore if interconnectivity is a real concern, that's a reason to go with MS. Personally I don't buy either argument.
I'm wholeheartedly in favor of holding government to open standards. Requiring OSS, on the other hand, seems a bit too drastic a step to me.
I'd go with that, but it's a more moderate position than that taken by Mass - at least as represented by Slashdot, which could mean nothing.
I'm not fully convinced that the CAGW's "analysis" is even close to an accurate depiction of the proposal.
Yeah, it's usually not. ;)
I'm not fully convinced that the CAGW's "analysis" is even close to an accurate depiction of the proposal.
Yeah, I was wondering where the real actual proposal was. Sounds like people on both sides are probably going nuts for nothing.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
I take issue with the assumption that state intervention is a socialist act. Sure socialists want the state to intervene in the market, but it is the goal of such intervention, rather than the intervention itself, that is possibly socialistic.
hate is not a family value.
only a nazi would call anyone a communist.
bring it on porkchop.
sincerly,
mr.t.
see prwatch.org
I intended to mod this up as insightful, but somehow I seemed to have modded it troll... and I can't undue it or mod it again... oh wait.. I see all I need to do it finish posting this and my evil modding is undone.. cool